David Wilcock's False Predictions

[the_vast_mystery]

Posted by K626 (here)
I understand your motivation for the thread so don't worry. And I agree partly with your premise.

When I say mirror I mean there is a lot of DW in ALL OF US. So go easy on casting those rocks bro you might hit me or yourself for that matter.


peace

K

I hate to be harsh, but this response is absolutely infantile. Do you disagree? Say why so it can be discussed? Do you not want to have that discussion? Then don't speak up in defense in the first place. Either you are agreeing to a discussion where you both are attempting to get to the bottom of a given subject (synonymous with the both of you reaching consensus on the subject) or you are here to cheer lead for your side; which is it? Just because David Wilcock might be a fraud or may just be ego-filled doesn't necessarily mean everything he says is wrong either. Source Field investigations first amazed me and it was all a smoke screen for the fact that about anything else he puts out isn't based on anything close to the amount of data he put there. (Although in his case it reads more like he's using data to build a narrative which sadly reeks of confirmation bias.)

Yes, we all have a bit of David Wilcock in us, I even admitted as much earlier in this thread and admitted to why I myself for a time was cheerleading myself for him. Then it dawned on me one of the most classic tricks used by a huckster, they'll take something very true and twist it to suit their own agenda. For a lie to be convincing, some part of it must be true or at least reflect what we really want to be true. So hucksters parlay trust built in one area into another, the most relevant modern-day example are the so-called "Creation Scientists" who actually have degrees in entirely unrelated areas, such as the humanities, making poor biological or geological arguments for creationism or intelligent design. These people are absolutely intelligent and brilliant in one area, but they are completely unfit to speak about the subject at hand, yet they parlay your trust in them and their credentials to push a lot of unfalsifiable BS onto you.

So don't be caught up in thinking it's so either/or regarding some of the subjects David Wilcock is talking about. Rather, try to see him as a person, like any other with an Agenda (we all have agendas.) Once you have a clear enough idea what his agenda is you can try to begin figuring out his motivations behind publishing X or Y. From there you can begin to see more clearly, what his claims are likely to represent. I say likely, because unfortunately no one really knows 100% of what lies in another person's mind for sure. I've even been able to confound so-called "psychics" myself. No one has ever completely been able to read me in all situations and by that I would say it's safe for us to assume this generally maintains true for us all; we are at times varying degrees of predictable and unpredictable.

Next time you want to accuse someone of unjustly casting stones though you should actually say why what they're doing equivocates to that so that it can be discussed until a better, more accurate way of phrasing the given material can be found between us. But we cannot refrain from any judgement, then it would be impossible to decide anything if we are not willing to set standards for what is probably true and what is probably not. We're still real people and need to make real decisions given what we can reasonably understand to be true, so it is paramount to figure out what information is correct and what is not. This means figuring out a speaker's motivations, even if they might tread into unsavory territory, must be done so that their teachings may be understood more clearly for what they are. If you disagree with the evaluations given though you can't just say "Nuh-uh! My super special feelings say this! So I'm going to call you wrong and then hide under the cloak of civility when you point out I've placed myself and anything I say beyond reproach!" It does not come off very well.

And believe me when I say that I do stupid things too, hell I just abruptly ended an emotion-filled debate in another thread a few days ago rather than continue it because I came to my own conclusion it would do nothing but yield more animosity. It still wasn't particularly fair to the other person in the thread, but here I am admitting to my own stupid behavior to make the point that no I am not immune from it either. That does not mean that I should not still try to act better in the future and similarly that does not mean that people like David Wilcock shouldn't try to clear this entire mess up with a humble understanding of why we currently have come to these conclusions. If they are entirely incorrect, it should be easy enough to demonstrate.

[Wind]

It seems that many people even in here are too dissapointed too many times? Afraid? I guess seeing really is believing... At least for some. Only time will tell.

Now to DW, since this thread is about him or his credibility. I think he is flawed as a human like most of us are. I give him credit for all the info he has gathered, I really don't care about his persona. I often have not believed some of his stuff, but then again sometimes his info has been amazing. I don't know if hes really Edgar Cayce reincarnated, he may be or not. It really doesn't not matter, at least not to me. I understand that many people have messiah complexes, but does it make them bad human beings? I try to undestand them, not judge. He has helped many people to realize their full potential and that is a fact.

[the_vast_mystery]

s

Posted by StarSeed (here)
It seems that many people even in here are too dissapointed too many times? Afraid? I guess seeing really is believing... At least for some. Only time will tell.

Now to DW, since this thread is about him or his credibility. I think he is flawed as a human like most of us are. I give him credit for all the info he has gathered, I really don't care about his persona. I often have not believed some of his stuff, but then again sometimes his info has been amazing. I don't know if hes really Edgar Cayce reincarnated, he may be or not. It really doesn't not matter, at least not te me. I understand that many people have messiah complexes, but does it make them bad human beings? I try to undestand them, not judge. He has helped many people to realize their full potential and that is a fact.

There's a difference between pronouncing a judgement on him as a whole person and observing and interpreting his actions to establish the motive behind them on a case by case basis. Personal judgement is definitely a bad idea as it suggests one is incapable of admitting to their faults and changing. However we must do our best to understand fully the meanings of actions to decide whether or not we should trust his information and that is very much rendering judgement. In that tense it becomes indistinguishable from choosing one's preference, such as deciding whether or not you prefer to be kicked hard in your nether regions, or if perhaps something softer and less jarring is what you'd like. It is a personal choice to decide whether or not you feel like anything he says is worth accepting.

However, many of us choose to use the best tools for evaluation of claims we have available and that includes evaluating past behavior to see how well he's fared. So far he evidences being very unable to admit to his faults and handle criticisms gracefully, his moderation staff regularly screen his comments and only post snarky responses to the easy to snipe-at ones (I should know, I've submitted some which were just flat-out not aired despite being ten times as civil as some of the drivel that gets posted there usually with the moderator sniping back at them.) We chose to do this, because we can easily look back at the history of how we've all been lied to collectively to learn the lessons from that as to what signs may be shown by someone who is attempting to push their own ego instead of the truth.

Has he opened people's eyes? Absolutely! But especially if he's serious, and especially if he or his moderators were to read this thread, then he should take this as a sign that if he wants to continue he has to come completely clean and not let this BS clog up any serious work he has to do. If he's here to really help for our betterment then he's first got to do his due diligence in housekeeping and resolve what happened before so that there will be no more "He said, she said" drama over whether or not he is who or what he says he is. I do not give anyone a free pass, not myself, and certainly not anyone else.

People are free to believe whoever and whatever they want to believe, just as people are free to decide they love being kicked in the nethers for fun. In the end it all equals choice, but I'd sure like to see our language get more cleaned up so we actually explain these choices clearly for what they are rather than insisting on some silly universal equivalence that prevents people from making their own decisions about whether or not they consider these signs a serious risk of being lied to, as well as whether they're willing to take that risk of being lied to, quite possibly to a very high degree, by someone.

For some of us, the truth need its own criminal defense Attorney to advocate for it. It's just a side-effect of living in a world of such universal deceit. ^_^;;

[9eagle9]

It doesn't make them bad humans it make them poor spiritual leaders.

Posted by StarSeed (here)
It seems that many people even in here are too dissapointed too many times? Afraid? I guess seeing really is believing... At least for some. Only time will tell.

Now to DW, since this thread is about him or his credibility. I think he is flawed as a human like most of us are. I give him credit for all the info he has gathered, I really don't care about his persona. I often have not believed some of his stuff, but then again sometimes his info has been amazing. I don't know if hes really Edgar Cayce reincarnated, he may be or not. It really doesn't not matter, at least not te me. I understand that many people have messiah complexes, but does it make them bad human beings? I try to undestand them, not judge. He has helped many people to realize their full potential and that is a fact.

[seigiarchon]

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
It doesn't make them bad humans it make them poor spiritual leaders.

True spiritual leaders have very little human flaws.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

Posted by seigiarchon (here)

True spiritual leaders have very little human flaws.

This is not in the least bit true. This is an idea that you have, but it is not reality.

[9eagle9]

Conversely there's very few true spiritual leaders.

[Wind]

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
It doesn't make them bad humans it make them poor spiritual leaders.

Is he supposed to be a spiritual leader? I certainly don't need one.

[9eagle9]

Typically its the adherents that make the guru. Without the adherents there would be no one to follow.

Its better described as people who are really on meaningful path are open to guiding (not doing one's work for them)and they are not really interested in having multitude of flock around them. The ego is fed by that certainly. People who find validation through the flattery of others.

For those on an inspired search of SELF realization its a challenge to keep up with one's own work and one finds having to do the work for others exhausting. Even in relationships where one party is on a path of self realization and the other is not , becomes wearing. Sometimes the relations endures it somehow, and many times it doesnt' . Its just too exhausting to drag others along with you and that's not what self realization is for.

And the flattery and adoration of others is put in it's proper perspective.

Posted by StarSeed (here)

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
It doesn't make them bad humans it make them poor spiritual leaders.

Is he supposed to be a spiritual leader? Because I certainly don't need one.

[9eagle9]

Well people who are equipped to be spiritual leaders tend to be less fussed with the usual idiocy humans involve themselves in and find all new foibles and potholes to blunder into while in the process of self actualization. Twenty years ago I didn't have to weight my actions and examine my thoughts as I have to now so we are affirmed that this new age has brought in a whole new spotlight on "ignorance is bliss."

That seems reasonable given that expanding human potential also expands the opportunity to walk into something you have no idea how to navigate.

Posted by Whiskey_Mystic (here)

Posted by seigiarchon (here)

True spiritual leaders have very little human flaws.

This is not in the least bit true. This is an idea that you have, but it is not reality.

[jorr lundstrom]

If anyone want try being a spiritual leader for me, he/ she is welcome

to give it a try. It sure wouldnt be boring. We could start trying to

figure out where I am. LOL It certainly would end with two humans

being astray, instead of only me. LOL


All is well


Jorr

[jorr lundstrom]

Posted by seigiarchon (here)

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
It doesn't make them bad humans it make them poor spiritual leaders.

True spiritual leaders have very little human flaws.

Ahhh segiarchon, here we got an archontic conclusion. LOL


All is well


Jorr

[SilentFeathers]

First need to be a spiritual leader of the self before being able to spiritually lead, heal, or help others successfully, very few are that balanced and centered/grounded to fit that glove....

[jorr lundstrom]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
First need to be a spiritual leader of the self before being able to spiritually lead, heal, or help others successfully, very few are that balanced and centered/grounded to fit that glove....

Yes, I suppose it could be hard to snatch the things people are

playing with, watching their despair when they have nothing to

cling to. ROFLOL


All is well


Jorr

[K626]

Posted by the_vast_mystery (here)

Posted by K626 (here)
I understand your motivation for the thread so don't worry. And I agree partly with your premise.

When I say mirror I mean there is a lot of DW in ALL OF US. So go easy on casting those rocks bro you might hit me or yourself for that matter.


peace

K

I hate to be harsh, but this response is absolutely infantile. Do you disagree? Say why so it can be discussed? Do you not want to have that discussion? Then don't speak up in defense in the first place. Either you are agreeing to a discussion where you both are attempting to get to the bottom of a given subject (synonymous with the both of you reaching consensus on the subject) or you are here to cheer lead for your side; which is it? Just because David Wilcock might be a fraud or may just be ego-filled doesn't necessarily mean everything he says is wrong either. Source Field investigations first amazed me and it was all a smoke screen for the fact that about anything else he puts out isn't based on anything close to the amount of data he put there. (Although in his case it reads more like he's using data to build a narrative which sadly reeks of confirmation bias.)

Yes, we all have a bit of David Wilcock in us, I even admitted as much earlier in this thread and admitted to why I myself for a time was cheerleading myself for him. Then it dawned on me one of the most classic tricks used by a huckster, they'll take something very true and twist it to suit their own agenda. For a lie to be convincing, some part of it must be true or at least reflect what we really want to be true. So hucksters parlay trust built in one area into another, the most relevant modern-day example are the so-called "Creation Scientists" who actually have degrees in entirely unrelated areas, such as the humanities, making poor biological or geological arguments for creationism or intelligent design. These people are absolutely intelligent and brilliant in one area, but they are completely unfit to speak about the subject at hand, yet they parlay your trust in them and their credentials to push a lot of unfalsifiable BS onto you.

So don't be caught up in thinking it's so either/or regarding some of the subjects David Wilcock is talking about. Rather, try to see him as a person, like any other with an Agenda (we all have agendas.) Once you have a clear enough idea what his agenda is you can try to begin figuring out his motivations behind publishing X or Y. From there you can begin to see more clearly, what his claims are likely to represent. I say likely, because unfortunately no one really knows 100% of what lies in another person's mind for sure. I've even been able to confound so-called "psychics" myself. No one has ever completely been able to read me in all situations and by that I would say it's safe for us to assume this generally maintains true for us all; we are at times varying degrees of predictable and unpredictable.

Next time you want to accuse someone of unjustly casting stones though you should actually say why what they're doing equivocates to that so that it can be discussed until a better, more accurate way of phrasing the given material can be found between us. But we cannot refrain from any judgement, then it would be impossible to decide anything if we are not willing to set standards for what is probably true and what is probably not. We're still real people and need to make real decisions given what we can reasonably understand to be true, so it is paramount to figure out what information is correct and what is not. This means figuring out a speaker's motivations, even if they might tread into unsavory territory, must be done so that their teachings may be understood more clearly for what they are. If you disagree with the evaluations given though you can't just say "Nuh-uh! My super special feelings say this! So I'm going to call you wrong and then hide under the cloak of civility when you point out I've placed myself and anything I say beyond reproach!" It does not come off very well.

And believe me when I say that I do stupid things too, hell I just abruptly ended an emotion-filled debate in another thread a few days ago rather than continue it because I came to my own conclusion it would do nothing but yield more animosity. It still wasn't particularly fair to the other person in the thread, but here I am admitting to my own stupid behavior to make the point that no I am not immune from it either. That does not mean that I should not still try to act better in the future and similarly that does not mean that people like David Wilcock shouldn't try to clear this entire mess up with a humble understanding of why we currently have come to these conclusions. If they are entirely incorrect, it should be easy enough to demonstrate.

This is a classic example of what I was saying. Sorry but I find your reflection (mirror) of what I was saying completely misguided. Throwing stones is a METAPHOR that applies to ALL OF US INC ME, it wasn't a literal ACCUSATION.

I enjoyed reading that post however as I find it frank and open and I look forward to discussin many things with you as you have a fine mind. I have been on Avalon for 5 years and if you really knew me I don't think you would have such a low baseline of my abilities.

DW is a mirror (reflection) of all those who follow him, I think he's found himself in a difficult place.

peace

K

[Ishtar]

Thank you 9eagle9 for your post yesterday about how the particular is relevant to the individual but doesn't translate to the general, the global. I think you hit the nail on the head with David's problem there. I don't think he's a huckster. I think he is dangerously deluded because he doesn't know how to read the language of the spirits. Here's an example of what I mean.

Last night, I had a dream where I was in a boat and suddenly, huge tsunami-like waves began to appear. I said to the boatman that we should turn back, but he said that it was too late and we must continue. The waves continued to come and swamp the boat and toss it around like a piece of driftwood, but eventually we came upon land and there was a huge tower. We got ourselves into the tower, but the water was following us in and threatening to swamp the tower. We kept going deeper and deeper into the building, trying to get away from the water. Eventually, we found some people in the tower, who began to talk to me about some deep inner pain that I'd been hiding from myself for some time. I got angry with them, because they'd struck a nerve, but they patiently waited for me to work through that emotion to get to the real stuff, the pain underneath, and then we began to work with it, to bring it to the surface so that it could be healed.

I woke this morning feeling immensely grateful for such a healing dream. But if I'd been David Wilcock, I'd have woken convinced that I had to warn the world that a great flood is coming.

As you're aware (but others may not be), shamans know that the intradimensional entities one meets in Dreamtime, otherwise known as the spirits, communicate in metaphor. The messages of these spirits are 1) not literal, but metaphorical and 2) not global, but individual.

Water is a fairly common universal metaphor for emotion and feeling, and buildings usually represent our physical manifestation in this world through the body-mind-spirit continuum. The dream meant that unless I dealt with these repressed emotions, my building or body would be over-run or flooded with them, and this will manifest in illness or disease.

David Wilcock doesn't understand how to read the metaphors of Dreamtime, and is taking them literally and applying them globally. It is a mistake often made by the adept at the very beginning of the spiritual path, and that's OK because beginners are supposed to make mistakes ~ that's how they learn. But if that beginner has no-one to correct his delusions and worse, is being 'handled' by people who are using his delusions for their own agenda, which is to corral people into their control pens, then that makes his delusions dangerous to the rest of the human race.

[joedjemal]

I must admit I'm not overwhelmed by the was he presents himself but I know nothing about the man but what he presents. I tend to rank information sources based on their track record and external confirmation. Based on that approach I'm afraid David Wilcock ranks alongside Sorcha Faal for past reliability. I gets a bit boring watching the flim flam he puts out suck up so many peoples energy and time.

If anything he's talking about actually happens I'll re rank him.

[9eagle9]

Yep first rule of thumb broken.

If one doesn't learn to manage their abilities those abilities will soon be managing them--or managed by something else.

OUR dreams tend be about OURselves. One doesn't have to bend or defy logic and feeling to understand that as the truth is a simple situation.

[SilentFeathers]

Wilcock is just doing what many do, perhaps with a bit more ego and a more controversial (perhaps unethical) agenda than many others but he has been conditioned just as the rest of us have. He is making a living at another's expense, selling a product to pay his bills and to buy food.

We all feed off of each other to one extent or another, in good ways and sometimes bad ways.

When a doctor doesn't know whats wrong with you they'll most likely guess and lie to you more or less and prescribe pills and tell you to eat 'em everyday for two weeks and if your not better come back.....well, not much different than what Wilcock and several others do. If the pills don't work you either go back to the same doctor for the same quality treatment and hope they missed something, or you find another doctor......preferably a more educated and better doctor than the previous, where's Wilcock getting his info or medicine from? Perhaps his teacher or source can better inform you, or perhaps you need a completely different perspective.....Wilcock then becomes just a stepping stone towards more clarity or better medicine.

As I said in an earlier post, many others in the alternative or "out of the box" research community are doing the exact same thing as Wilcock with similar claims of channeling dead people or aliens/gods, writing books loaded with others info and research and putting their own personal spin on it etc.

I suppose it's our job to sift through the debris for beneficial information..........

Raf, this thread was not in vain, those that see what your intention was/is should benefit from it and perhaps not take so much for granted in the future in there journey or quest for the truth....some see it as an attack on Wilcock, but in my eyes you could of chosen several other "researchers/mediums/saviors" as the subject to make your point and would of got very similiar results/responses.

Good job brother, ya got people thinking and perhaps may have even caused a few people to question their own "information guru's" and just not Wilcock.

No one knows it all and even the best doctor can make a mistake and prescribe the wrong medicine, and a not so good doctor can really screw one up and make a complete mess out of ones life.....

(read under my signature)

[gripreaper]

Posted by joedjemal (here)
I must admit I'm not overwhelmed by the was he presents himself but I know nothing about the man but what he presents. I tend to rank information sources based on their track record and external confirmation. Based on that approach I'm afraid David Wilcock ranks alongside Sorcha Faal for past reliability. I gets a bit boring watching the flim flam he puts out suck up so many peoples energy and time.

If anything he's talking about actually happens I'll re rank him.

Well, I'm amazed at how David's collating of others information mesmerizes so many people and how defensive the David lovers are. If you go to the comments section of his blog, 75% of the comments are hero worshipers with such comments as: Oh, thank you so much David for your fantastic work, and we love you and you are the greatest and my life is totally changed by you and keep up the good work and get some rest and don't push so hard...blah..blah...blahhhh.....oh, by the way, when is the next installment? I can't wait for part two of this epic unfolding you are singlehandedly ushering in, the greatest global transformation of this planet ever to occur in earths trillions of year history, and it's all because you have stepped up, Oh sweet and generous David, and chosen to spearhead this transition and be the global liaison for all of the 146 aligned nations and the ET's too, and now Drake too! I'll bet being the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce and the soulstream of RA really helps! And your dreams confirm it all and that's how we know for sure it's all real and true!