The Truth about 'Pete' Peterson, David Wilcock, the foreclosure, the dead cats, and GoFundMe

[UfonautRadio]

Guys,

I'm starting a Go Fund Me because I don't have the $12 needed for the Teresa Y / Stacy Goode webinar coming up.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1560...7D&pnref=story

[Nasu]

Posted by UfonautRadio (here)
Guys,

I'm starting a Go Fund Me because I don't have the $12 needed for the Teresa Y / Stacy Goode webinar coming up.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1560...7D&pnref=story

Nice. You could have enough for a small yacht very soon, start by asking for $12 and watch it rise to over $50,000.. This gives me a great idea...x... N

[Bill Ryan]

Moderator note:

61 recent posts have been moved to create this new thread. It deserved its own new topic.

I substantially updated the new first post #1 to summarize the key importances. Do please read, if you're coming to this information for the first time. The whole thread to this point contains many more details.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by ditting (here)
Regarding the photograph of the truck with the dumpsters: those do not appear to be dumpsters to me, they appear to be containers. Dumpsters usually are designed to roll off of a truck and are open on top with a door hinged one one side across one full face. Containers usually are sealed boxes with a pair of hinged doors on one face.

Dumpsters would imply they would be disposing of the contents. Containers such as those which can be easily loaded on a truck and moved off sight are more likely there to store Pete's belongings off sight. This makes me think his items are just being removed from the property and not necessarily being disposed of. If this were true, David's statements are even less credible.

Dumpsters:


Containers:

Yes, you may well be right. (Forgive me! 'Dumpster' isn't really a term used in the UK. )

Here's the satellite photo from Google Earth:



And on the ground: (24 Aug 2017)

[Chester]

Posted by Kristin (here)

Posted by JoefromtheCarolinas (here)

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
If Pete Peterson is mentally unwell, it makes me wonder how long he has been mentally unwell for. Taking it a step further, I wonder if he was mentally unwell when he supposedly signed all his stuff over to the manipulative Wilcock. I recall the joint interview with Bill way back when, and Peterson seemed to regard David like an annoying fly.

I don't want to speculate irresponsibly, but the guy has shown himself time n again to be a lying, scheming weasel.

You know what its starting to look like regarding Wilcock? He's been networking to find "vulnerables" to play "witness/whistleblower" as it is clear now this is what he's done with Peterson and Goode. Holy wow... I cannot imagine being anything "lower."

At least all this is finally getting exposed.

If that is indeed the case, it is against the law in both the state of Idaho as well as the state of California to engage in abuse /neglect of a person who lacks decision-making capacity. If indeed Peterson's decision-making capacity is impaired, wilcock could be in some very deep trouble. Maybe he will be booking a world tour soon?

I'm having a hard time seeing victims here, rather what I see are willing participants in cooperation with each other. Pete may be an exception to this at this time in his life, but he was well into spreading the butter thick earlier on.

I understand your post and the point about victims.

There are the vulnerable who, then, wittingly become part of the problem makers. There are the vulnerable who might then become victims.

For example, the story of Hollie Craig who, if the stories are reasonably true, was/is a mentally challenged individual (a vulnerable) who was purportedly sexually abused since she was six years old (a victim).

There is then the possibility of a Pete Peterson having his own potential vulnerabilities (proclivities towards mythomania, megalomania, pathological lying, etc.) who, if discovered by someone who can see a way to "use" (and thus bring into the fold, nurture, coach, etc.) the individual whereby the individual then willingly and wittingly becomes a part of the "tag team" then I do not see them as a victim. I believe Corey Goode is an example of this as well.

The key legal decider would be based on a determination as to whether they were mentally competent at the outset and/or as the charade progressed. If Pete Peterson's current mental/emotional state could be deemed incompetent at this time, I would think its a far reach to think a case could be built that he was incompetent 8 years ago when Pete's stories (and Wilcock's involvement along with others) brought his stories to the public.

The point I am hoping to make is that there's likely no excuse for Peterson just as there's likely no excuse for Goode (and many, many others), but what the entire alternative community should recognize is the danger of someone in Wilcock's position (who has access to media outlets) in bringing forward folks of little or no conscience who then 'pied piper' the vulnerables among the audiences over the cliffs of disinformation to the land of pure fantasy.

[Kristin]

Well said Sammy

The point I am hoping to make is that there's likely no excuse for Peterson just as there's likely no excuse for Goode (and many, many others), but what the entire alternative community should recognize is the danger of someone in Wilcock's position (who has access to media outlets) in bringing forward folks of little or no conscience who then pied piper the vulnerables among the audiences over the cliffs of disinformation to the land of pure fantasy.

This is why I have not dropped this topic and why I continue to post. The distortion of truth and the distortion of other researcher's hard work is creating an unrealistic image that people believe in a cultish way. It's dangerous. People have been getting threats, stalked, and generally labeled as a "dark cabal" without any evidence.

Everything that they claim is being done to them they are in fact DOING to others. We are just here gathering and looking at REAL evidence. Their world is inverted... which brings forth disturbing conclusions beyond psychopathy. AND there are kids involved and being marketed to.

I worry about these people who are actually believing in this. They were vulnerable, looking for answers, and they give their time, money, and devotion. They have lost their way and will spit in your face to defend it. They are blinded by tall tales and a need for spiritual understanding.

Guru types are coming out of the woodwork everywhere these days to try to harvest up the unknowing, claiming to have all the answers in a world that is in chaos. These are troubling times but the only answer is in knowing the truth about any of it. Without that, everything we do will have no effect and nothing we do will be lasting because nothing we do will be real.

Compassion is based in truth. It's not pretty, safe, or filled with bowels of rose petals and essential oil. It just IS. What we are uncovering is a small micro version of a much broader issue and a BIG problem which needs to be focused upon.

What happened to critical thinking, discernment, sovereignty? I am grateful that this is is alive and well here. Let us continue to nurture and develop our skills. It is empowering and healing to do so.

[neutronstar]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)


I do think that some of what he told us had to have been true. It'd be impossible to invent all that. (Wouldn't it?)

.

Not really. You would be surprised at some people's abilities. I am not saying that all of it is a lie, but it very well could be.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way but this should be a lesson for everyone on this forum. Everyone can be fooled. Just because you meet someone and they are nice, impressive, or whatever, doesn't mean they are on the level. I have learned this first hand and nothing surprises me anymore.

I really don't know what to believe in the 48 years I have lived. I will listen to everything, and at the end of the day, I make my best guess, and I never am afraid to change my mind and admit that I could be wrong.

You and Kerry were a target for the deep state the moment you two started to do interviews. Don't you think that they sent people to you to muddy the waters. Do you think you could tell the difference between an actual whistle blower and one that was sent to deceive you? Knowing what I know I am almost certain I couldn't. I would think they would be very good at what they do.

[Chuck]

Thanks for this news on PP Bill. WOW! I considered Pete as one of the brightest, dynamic, genuine, credible and principled whistle blower that you have interviewed. (and perhaps in a way ... still do). I say that because if you believe what Omnisense and others are revealing about voice to skull, behavior modification and remote neural monitoring and control ... it is really tough to know exactly what is going on! Perhaps Pete Peterson and David Wilcock are targeted individuals.... or perhaps not ... Very tough to have a handle on anything anymore.

Wow ... is all I can say. I have a strange suspicion that as the veil continues to lift, that word will be common.

[Jantje]

For me the Pete Peterson interview of 2009 was one of the camelot interviews I always thought of as very sincere and real. One of the best Camelot interviews even.
When I saw Peterson again a few months ago, in conversation with Wilcock I felt something was not quite right. This led me to believe Peterson was compromised, but now all this is coming out I wonder if Peterson was ever genuine.

I guess this shows that it's very important to do a background check and ask for evidence that can back up what a whistleblower is presenting, otherwise it's just a person telling a story that might be true.

Never the less thanks for the thread Bill.
There is a reason I think you are one of the most credible people in the alternative/truthseeking community. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Jantje (here)
I guess this shows that it's very important to do a background check and ask for evidence that can back up what a whistleblower is presenting, otherwise it's just a person telling a story that might be true.

Yes, really. Even the first time we met 'Henry Deacon', in late 2006 (real name Arthur Neumann), he placed his documents on the table for us to read, but asked us to be silent when we read them.

He'd deliberately asked us to meet him in a really crowded Pizza Hut at 6 pm on a Saturday evening, filled with noisy children. The very first thing he did was put his cellphone on the table and take out the battery while we watched, and he motioned us to please do the same. He then showed us the documents. One item he wrote on a sheet of paper in pen, made sure we'd seen it, and then crumpled it up again.

That's how a real whistleblower thinks, fears, and operates. (Also see the extremely good Ed Snowden documentary, Citizenfour: it's very similar in some ways.)

A few weeks later, 'Henry' took us to his local pub in the small village close to the base he worked at, and Kerry and I sat in a corner watching his ex-colleagues come in the door and greet him with surprise. That was also a pretty good check for us. 'Henry' was always exactly who he said he was.

[Chester]

Posted by Chuck (here)
... it is really tough to know exactly what is going on! Perhaps Pete Peterson and David Wilcock are targeted individuals....

Great post. I had to quote one specific part to ask the following question -

If true... if someone is a TI and then consistently behaves deplorably - does the fact that they are a TI make any difference with regards to their own personal responibility to behave responsibly?

I ask this question to all who might read this post.

I believe that this is the most important question of all to consider and then answer with regards to this whole TI thing.

[Jantje]

I don't think of David Wilcock as a TI. David Wilcock is more like a brand.
All he has to do is come up with new content and stay relevant to his gullible audience to secure his income at this point.
There is no way back for him now. A complete 180 turn would destroy all his credibility to even his own audience

[raregem]

Through the years I have not been able to pay real close attention to Wilcock. I tend to turn off his videos quickly.
I have wondered about his back ground,education, family, marriage perhaps, children.????
A basic search today came up with RationalWiki.com. A partial write up is copied below. It was short.

RationalWiki:

David Wilcock (born 1973) is an American author known for promoting pseudoscience and pretending to his readers his ideas are factual.
Contents

1 Claims
2 Publications
3 External sources
4 References

Claims

Wilcock claims in his book and on his website that everything from extraterrestrial visitation, 2012 phenomena to reincarnation and ancient aliens are all scientific and factual. He believes in "ancient prophecies" and how they apparently align with the "latest research in quantum physics." He wrote that in 2012 there would be a consciousness shift on Earth.[1] It didn't happen.

In his book The Source Field Investigations (2011) he advocated intelligent design and vitalism by writing that all biological life on earth emerges directly out of an "energy source field".[2][3] Wilcock also believes he is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce.[4]

Wilcock's 2016 book is titled The Ascension Mysteries: Revealing the Cosmic Battle Between Good and Evil. According to historian Jason Colavito, who reviewed it, it is more about the cosmic battle between Wilcock and his high school bullies. See External sources.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Wilcock

[Chester]

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by Chuck (here)
... it is really tough to know exactly what is going on! Perhaps Pete Peterson and David Wilcock are targeted individuals....

Great post. I had to quote one specific part to ask the following question -

If true... if someone is a TI and then consistently behaves deplorably - does the fact that they are a TI make any difference with regards to their own personal responibility to behave responsibly?

I ask this question to all who might read this post.

I believe that this is the most important question of all to consider and then answer with regards to this whole TI thing.

I would really appreciate folks making an attempt to share their opinion as to my question. Please.

[Ewan]

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by Chuck (here)
... it is really tough to know exactly what is going on! Perhaps Pete Peterson and David Wilcock are targeted individuals....

Great post. I had to quote one specific part to ask the following question -

If true... if someone is a TI and then consistently behaves deplorably - does the fact that they are a TI make any difference with regards to their own personal responibility to behave responsibly?

I ask this question to all who might read this post.

I believe that this is the most important question of all to consider and then answer with regards to this whole TI thing.

I would really appreciate folks making an attempt to share their opinion as to my question. Please.

With all due respect I believe that would call for a new thread, and it is something I've pondered myself.

[Satori]

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by Chuck (here)
... it is really tough to know exactly what is going on! Perhaps Pete Peterson and David Wilcock are targeted individuals....

Great post. I had to quote one specific part to ask the following question -

If true... if someone is a TI and then consistently behaves deplorably - does the fact that they are a TI make any difference with regards to their own personal responibility to behave responsibly?

I ask this question to all who might read this post.

I believe that this is the most important question of all to consider and then answer with regards to this whole TI thing.

I would really appreciate folks making an attempt to share their opinion as to my question. Please.

In my opinion, yes it does make a difference.

If a person's thoughts and actions can be proved to not be of their own making, but rather are being influenced by outside factors over which they are not involved and have no control, then that should be considered and can be a defense to person responsibility. The criminal law recognizes this with such defenses as diminished capacity and insanity. But these are hard defenses to prove and for judges and juries to accept.

[Callista]

A new thread is a good idea. Shall we call it "TI or karma?"

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Sammy (here)
I would really appreciate folks making an attempt to share their opinion as to my question. Please.

Sure. To me it's crystal clear.

There are many ways that someone can be influenced... by being targeted electronically (which can be real), by psychic influence (very real), or simply a spouse, friends, or media articles or videos saying or urging certain actions or attitudes.

The point of choice lives within us all, at each moment of our lives, whatever those internal or external influences. (And they're ALL 'external' relative to the sovereign spiritual being that each of us really is.)

[findingneo]

Bipolar Psychosis?
.............................
I can't stop thinking about those poor cats. How people treat their pets says a lot about people.

[Chester]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Sammy (here)
I would really appreciate folks making an attempt to share their opinion as to my question. Please.

Sure. To me it's crystal clear.

There are many ways that someone can be influenced... by being targeted electronically (which can be real), by psychic influence (very real), or simply a spouse, friends, or media articles or videos saying or urging certain actions or attitudes.

The point of choice lives within us all, at each moment of our lives, whatever those internal or external influences. (And they're ALL 'external' relative to the sovereign spiritual being that each of us really is.)

Thanks for the response, Bill.

You don't say it directly, but what I am assuming is your direct answer that can be deduced from your response is that at least at the level of the sovereign spiritual being... we are all, each, ultimately fully responsible for our behavior (our actions and our words, written and spoken). If this is what you are saying, this is my opinion as well.

More of my own opinion... I would say that at the level of this one life, Samuel Hunter, I have reached the point about five years ago that I concluded I am ultimately responsible for my words and deeds even at the level of this one life and how that affects others through this shared reality we call "3D."

What I then realized was that sophisticated mind hacking tech (if it exists and I am very open minded that it does) which can actually plant clear, precise thoughts "into our heads" where we might initially think that the thought came from that same sovereign spiritual being that each of us ultimately may be (I say "may" because I avoid as best I can the imposition of my opinions regarding unprovable, other worldly matters) - though I must add that this "possibility" is a core operational assumption in my current set of operational assumptions... and thus I adopted an operational protocol which accomplished two things.

The operational protocol is this: Whatever thoughts I may experience, I decide as to what thoughts I wish to "own" (and for how long). It is the thoughts that I chose to own which I am now responsible for because it is possible some thoughts that appear to "arise from within" were placed within me from a third party controlled form of influence (and Bill listed several forms) yet that some are actual, word for word "thoughts" implanted by tech such as has been described by Omniverse and has been written and talked about by Dr. Robert Duncan and also investigated by Dr. John Hall.

The two things accomplished by my adoption of this operational protocol is that when I act in a disciplined way (instead of react as I have done most of my life) such that I examine my thoughts and then make a conscious decision on which thoughts I am prepared to own, I find my actions and words are better for anyone impacted by them (including myself). The second thing which has helped me so greatly that I cannot express the degree... having realized that the thoughts I observe that spontaneously arise may not be "my own," I now no longer experience any guilt or engage in self condemnation for this thoughts. Again, I cannot emphasize enough how greatly this has helped me.

I do though hold myself to extremely high standards as to the thoughts which I choose to won, reserving the right to change my mind. Of course sometimes these thoughts that I have chosen to won are the basis for what then becomes my words and actions. Because I still make all sorts of mistakes and still find myself disappointing in myself, I have clearly not perfected my application of this operational protocol and in fact... I do not expect I ever will. But since I have adopted this operational protocol, everyone in my life has benefited including myself.