Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: Is David Wilcock any good

  1. #16
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    29th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,346
    Thanks
    5,269
    Thanked 6,488 Times in 1,326 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Wyndstorm View Post
    Right Sam. Totally agree with you, also, one of my personal disagreements woth David. He also never commented on the OPPT Foreclosures of all corporations, govt bank strawman included, which holds total validity seen by many well respected Judges and such.

    But I still love David, and pray that one day his eyes & heart too will open to the "bigger picture." Nothing would be "paid for", because everything already is "prepaid, preauthorizied, and preapproved, " and shared freely. But I suppose we're still playing in that damned money system still...

    Oh well, can't hold it against him. LOVE YOU DAVE!
    And in fact... I was speaking with [another member] about this. And [this member] shared with me some insight related to his younger days and some exposure he had in relation to someone who was close enough to have influence over him. I have been there. I understood and wanted to give DW another chance. ... And yet, why has DW still not released these interviews? ... Anyways I wished to give DW another chance ... . And I am beginning to think nothing will Wilcock provide the public of any substance that he provides for free.

    Thanks DW for requiring us to use the very system which you champion yourself to be freeing us from.
    Last edited by Church, 11th May 2015 at 04:03. Reason: removing direct mention of other forum member
    ...to the topTop

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    Daozen (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015), Ria (11th May 2015), Susan (11th May 2015)

  3. #17
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    29th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,346
    Thanks
    5,269
    Thanked 6,488 Times in 1,326 Posts
    Of course and its sad to admit but when you observe most of humanity, you see those happy to settle for what they are fed by the media. And then of course, this includes much of the so called Alternative Media. And note, it doesn't have to be about the money... it can also be about the fulfillment of a savior complex or a desire to be something when they can't find a way to be it any other way. Some folks are so desperate to be liked and listened to and believed, they will go to any lengths to achieve the filling of that giant crater of a hole in their life. In fact, I would make it quite heavy odds this is far more the case than it ever being anything about the money.

    So for me its clear... as long as there are enough people (those who are anything but positive outside of airy fairy new agy wagy positive swayed by disinfo and information twisting, non-vibrational (can’t even feel a soul pulse), laughing behind your back types who keep hearing “chaching” everytime their site hit count goes up another 100, or even better, get the warm fuzzies over ego strokes, hidebound via deflection and table turning, dowdy, happy to be the the pied piper so others' reality zones are stirred into sad manipulations such that the vulnerable become distracted by fantasy instead of focused on the daily reality happening right before their eyes) that there’s another sucker born every day.

    Still, I am optimistic that one day... enough of us wake up... not suck up... truly wake up.
    Last edited by Chester, 11th May 2015 at 18:56.
    ...to the topTop

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    All is One (12th May 2015), Breeze (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015), modwiz (11th May 2015), Ria (11th May 2015), Wind (11th May 2015), zera (11th May 2015)

  5. #18
    In Memoriam United States
    Join Date
    22nd April 2015
    Location
    Bay City, MI area
    Posts
    219
    Thanks
    792
    Thanked 992 Times in 213 Posts
    I have worked in several fields where people felt that my services and creativity should be a freebee to get the material products of the contract. I sympathize with David and others who provide intellectual property. Somehow we have raised several generations of people who feel that whatever other people do should be free but not their work.

    I don't know how much of this is because of the dumbing down process of education, more and more free government handouts, lots of "you are worth it" advertising and a great deal of social engineering designed to turn people into robot like slaves.

    Since the internet has turned into an adult toy, the number of complaints has risen dramatically. People do not seem capable of making choices only about complaining. Some day things maybe free but it will require much greater attention to where our culture is going and where we want it to go on behalf of future generations.
    ...to the topTop

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to grannyfranny For This Useful Post:

    Chester (11th May 2015), GCS1103 (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015), JRS (11th May 2015)

  7. #19
    Senior Member ERK's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th March 2015
    Posts
    328
    Thanks
    949
    Thanked 1,583 Times in 325 Posts
    Prior to meeting DW, I really liked him even though the majority of his material was not panning out. I stopped following his material years ago and I stick with more tried and true researchers (Timothy Good is my favorite researcher on the UFOlogy aspect and I like his gentlemanly mannerisms- the aspect of how a researcher conducts himself is key to me, same can be said of whistleblowers as character lends a lot to credibility IMO).
    Last edited by ERK, 11th May 2015 at 05:13.
    ...to the topTop

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ERK For This Useful Post:

    Chester (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015), Ria (11th May 2015)

  9. #20
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    29th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,346
    Thanks
    5,269
    Thanked 6,488 Times in 1,326 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by grannyfranny View Post
    I have worked in several fields where people felt that my services and creativity should be a freebee to get the material products of the contract. I sympathize with David and others who provide intellectual property. Somehow we have raised several generations of people who feel that whatever other people do should be free but not their work.

    I don't know how much of this is because of the dumbing down process of education, more and more free government handouts, lots of "you are worth it" advertising and a great deal of social engineering designed to turn people into robot like slaves.

    Since the internet has turned into an adult toy, the number of complaints has risen dramatically. People do not seem capable of making choices only about complaining. Some day things maybe free but it will require much greater attention to where our culture is going and where we want it to go on behalf of future generations.
    Hi, I agree that in our world today, if someone has an original idea, and they are able to put that idea out into the lives of others in a practical way that benefits the lives of others such that these others procure the product then the "inventor" surely should benefit from their invention.

    What I DO have a problem with is someone attempting to copyright the perennial philosophy which has been written about by thousands of authors and has sprung up spontaneously through multiple unconnected cultures almost as if the knowledge is brought forth from the morphegentic grid and is knowledge held within the heart and soul of every sentient living being.

    That is essentially what DW attempted to scare folks into... into being fearful to share with others the perennial philosophy where the vulnerable would say... better just buy DW's video series (to be safe!)

    Quite a difference.
    Last edited by Chester, 11th May 2015 at 05:17.
    ...to the topTop

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    ERK (11th May 2015), grannyfranny (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015), modwiz (11th May 2015), Ria (11th May 2015), zera (11th May 2015)

  11. #21
    Senior Member Australia RealityCreation's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,610 Times in 252 Posts
    Is there really any benefit in becoming personal & discussing a person?

    From my point of view we all create the version of the seemingly outward person that we are seeing projected on the screen in front of us. We create and experience the version of them (another Self) that we are currently in resonance with via our own beliefs and perceptions.

    So there are multiple versions of everyone including David, Corey, myself - the cheater, the liar, the friend, the guru, the leader, the whistleblower, the XYZ - choose your own label. As soon as you label someone or something you have created a judgement & collapsed the wave function into the version of them that you are choosing to experience them as. The trick is in realising if you are consciously choosing or are unknown beliefs doing the choosing of the version for you.

    Surely it is the information / message which should be of most interest rather than the messenger. The information will either resonate, partially resonate or not resonate & again the way the information is perceived will be according to your own beliefs - conscious or subconscious.
    We Are the One's We've been Waiting For ~ Carl Calleman
    ...to the topTop

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (11th May 2015), Aragorn (12th May 2015), Church (11th May 2015), Gretchen (11th May 2015), Spiral of Light (11th May 2015), surfferjoe (11th May 2015), veloravelvet (11th May 2015)

  13. #22
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    29th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,346
    Thanks
    5,269
    Thanked 6,488 Times in 1,326 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by RealityCreation View Post
    Surely it is the information / message which should be of most interest rather than the messenger. The information will either resonate, partially resonate or not resonate & again the way the information is perceived will be according to your own beliefs - conscious or subconscious.
    I agree with this - and that is why I pointed out examples of actions that bothered me. The action of claiming to own the information that is most intimate to each of our souls.

    Its too bad I had to name the being behind those actions. Sadly, actions do get associated to the one who acted out those actions.

    Its called personal responsibility.

    The title of the thread is - Is David Wilcock any good.

    I gave information that may help a reader decide. Can he change? Sure... starts with an acknowledgment of things one might wish to change, next comes an apology and then the apology is made good based on whether the change actually comes forth.
    Last edited by Chester, 11th May 2015 at 07:13.
    ...to the topTop

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    ERK (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015), modwiz (11th May 2015), RealityCreation (11th May 2015), Ria (11th May 2015)

  15. #23
    Senior Member Church's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    The Land of Flowers
    Posts
    1,489
    Thanks
    2,540
    Thanked 6,460 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by RealityCreation View Post
    Is there really any benefit in becoming personal & discussing a person?
    I find this to be a refreshing point of view to see posted by a member. We have been discussing this very specific question in the staff forum, and we still aren't sure if it's necessary to establish a rule against it, honestly. We have a rule in place about not calling out other members here, but nothing explicitly states not to start threads about individuals who are notable in various fields, because there are legitimate reasons to have to mention people. But we are actively working toward establishing a new theme around here, where content becomes more important than personality. So we are trying to find a balance, which is a lot easier said than done.

    Truth is, when I first saw this thread I immediately wondered why we have to question David Wilcock the person, instead of his work. Honestly, some people like him, some people don't, and some people don't have an opinion on him... Isn't that how these things always poll? So it does seem like nothing conclusive could really come out of this discussion in the end.

    I humbly ask our members to try to go forward from here and think about focusing on content more than personality. Content is much easier to have discourse about than whether a person is "any good."
    I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human.
    ...to the topTop

  16. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Church For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (12th May 2015), bsbray (11th May 2015), Ciauzar (11th May 2015), modwiz (11th May 2015), RealityCreation (11th May 2015), Spiral of Light (11th May 2015), surfferjoe (11th May 2015), Vimana (12th May 2015)

  17. #24
    Senior Member Maunagarjana's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th March 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    511
    Thanked 430 Times in 71 Posts
    I've read David's books and articles and listened to his lectures and find great value in them. I've read endless amounts of petty gripes and criticisms by his detractors and I find no value in them. My 2 units of currency.
    Last edited by Maunagarjana, 11th May 2015 at 09:34.
    ...to the topTop

  18. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Maunagarjana For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (12th May 2015), bsbray (11th May 2015), Chester (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015), JRS (11th May 2015), MrNiceGuy (11th May 2015), Spiral of Light (11th May 2015), veloravelvet (11th May 2015), xenaphobic (17th May 2015)

  19. #25
    Senior Member Australia RealityCreation's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,610 Times in 252 Posts
    Hi Sam,

    I wasn't referring to your post or implying any criticism to either you or actually whoever began the thread. I was responding in a general way according to how I believe reality is created & the people who propagate it & just taking the title as an example.

    I am not always good at conveying what I mean via the writing medium. I much prefer talking rather than writing so I apologise if you felt my comment was directed at you.

    As far as I am able I prefer to not cast judgement upon people & again I am not implying anything about anyone else. In fact, I have been called up for jury duty twice several years ago (over here it is compulsory to attend) & I have refused to do it because of my personal belief system.


    I like David but I am not an ardent follower of his work. I came across him many years ago when I was just beginning to research many of the different topics that he covered & found him to have a really good breadth of knowledge.
    I stopped really reading his work 2-3 years ago because by then I had researched for myself most of the science, spirituality & had my own answers. Some of my views on how we create our reality I think are quite different to David's also.

    I was drawn back to look at his latest information re Corey, disclosure etc in April because it happened to correlate with a couple of pieces of information that I already had. So I was interested to see how what info he & Corey had & whether it was relevant or not.


    As far as David & copyrighting his version of information I don't personally have a problem about that & I don't have an issue with your perception of it either.

    From my perspective I see that, yes, he may be presenting information that belongs to everyone & has been researched/written by many other people however I look at it as paying for his time.

    So whatever conference, video etc he has made he has pulled together information from different sources, inserted images, made the intuitive connections & delivered it in his own style. He has made the information available to people who are perhaps time poor & don't have the time to do the research or have the knowhow for themselves. So perhaps the copyright from his POV could be more for preventing someone else copying his exact format, sequence of information & images that he has thought out & prepared? I don't know.
    We Are the One's We've been Waiting For ~ Carl Calleman
    ...to the topTop

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Chester (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015)

  21. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    14th April 2015
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 211 Times in 52 Posts
    Discussing people is walking on thin ice. So i will try not to break it.

    Lets assume the intended purpose of his work is information sharing and evolution of consciousness.

    I will be critical.

    He tends to gather already known information and repackages it. He goes to point out the obvious (yet sometimes overlooked in general) and then adds to it with his elaborations (that often do not exactly require insider information), which he then chain relates to anything he possibly can (his past publications) - which can be helpful, but is almost always tied to a commercial offering.

    If someone wants to pay for what he is selling, hey...it is their choice. You do not like something enough to buy it, then don't. He runs a business and as with any business its primary goal is to survive, strive for growth and possibly flourish. None of that and he can close down his website along with all its pay-per-view and free content.

    He is good at describing, writing and telling things in a story format. It is a known fact the mind of a human animal is far more perceptive to that kind of information sharing. Aside from story telling elements free publications can also read like a marketing letter. There is a hype after hyper after hype and then bum - the new/past book/video which is just a must have to...etc Remember, it is a business.

    As one reads his FREE (anything free is always heavily emphasized and to some extent exaggerated) publications it is apparent he "holds himself in high regard". If that is a part of his stage persona or not, i do not know. His stage persona does seem to had some training (as in how to be on stage, what not to do, how to address the public...etc) But it does send a message. This message is received/perceived differently and at times it can seem to be contradictory to the intended purpose of his work.

    Question: is the amount of free content sufficient to meet the intended purpose of his information sharing or does one actually have to open up a wallet to get that and the free part essentially only serves as a teaser?
    Last edited by Tanta, 11th May 2015 at 11:41.
    ...to the topTop

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tanta For This Useful Post:

    Chester (11th May 2015), ERK (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015)

  23. #27
    Senior Member KosmicKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    The Northeast Kingdom
    Posts
    491
    Thanks
    2,228
    Thanked 2,466 Times in 473 Posts
    I found DW's latest posting online quite disappointing after being an interested follower for some years. No major new facets to shed further light on the puzzle, but a vague encouragement that "the cabal is collapsing" and "disclosure will occur soon". Given that it was more than five years ago I was listening as a newcomer to his "Disclosure Endgame" broadcast predicting that "disclosure will occur soon", I am perhaps disillusioned.

    IMO his strongest work remains his original investigations into the "Source Field", available gratis on his website.
    ...to the topTop

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KosmicKat For This Useful Post:

    Chester (11th May 2015), ERK (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015), Ria (11th May 2015)

  25. #28
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    7,587
    Thanks
    33,191
    Thanked 28,767 Times in 7,010 Posts
    Does not feel nice reading the above post.
    ...to the topTop

  26. #29
    In Memoriam
    Join Date
    9th March 2015
    Posts
    696
    Thanks
    754
    Thanked 4,286 Times in 688 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by RealityCreation View Post
    Is there really any benefit in becoming personal & discussing a person?

    From my point of view we all create the version of the seemingly outward person that we are seeing projected on the screen in front of us. We create and experience the version of them (another Self) that we are currently in resonance with via our own beliefs and perceptions.

    So there are multiple versions of everyone including David, Corey, myself - the cheater, the liar, the friend, the guru, the leader, the whistleblower, the XYZ - choose your own label. As soon as you label someone or something you have created a judgement & collapsed the wave function into the version of them that you are choosing to experience them as. The trick is in realising if you are consciously choosing or are unknown beliefs doing the choosing of the version for you.

    Surely it is the information / message which should be of most interest rather than the messenger. The information will either resonate, partially resonate or not resonate & again the way the information is perceived will be according to your own beliefs - conscious or subconscious.
    Wave function?

    This is Bohmian mechanics 101. Allow me to extend this thought to the mental aspect of the Universe and most importantly what the function of the Back reaction is in that aspect.

    First the wave function:

    Bohmian pilot wave

    Bohmian mechanics, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. In addition to a wavefunction on the space of all possible configurations, it also includes an actual configuration, even in situations where nobody observes it. The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, of the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function via a guiding equation. The evolution of the wavefunction over time is given by Schrdinger's equation.

    The de Broglie–Bohm theory expresses in an explicit manner the fundamental non-locality of quantum physics. The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the wavefunction, which depends on the whole configuration of the universe.

    This theory is deterministic. Most (but not all) relativistic variants require a preferred frame. Variants which include spin and curved spaces are known. It can be modified to include quantum field theory. Bell's theorem was inspired by Bell's discovery of the work of David Bohm and his subsequent wondering if the obvious non-locality of the theory could be eliminated.

    Now the Back Reaction:

    People such as Josephson, Stapp, Penrose and others have suggested changes in quantum theory which allow for the possibility of "intent" or the like to bias quantum outcomes, but that all these authors operate using the Copenhagen picture in which there really is a "collapse" of the wavefunction. Some advocate a Bohmian picture in which both wave and particle are always real and there is no collapse. So how does mind enter the world? It must have been here from the start. An explicit dualism in which both mind and matter exist...

    "In accord with Chalmer's idea, the wavefunction is intrinsically 'mental' capable of qualia."

    ...and suggests equating the guiding wave in Bohmian mechanics with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the particles are "matter," "mind" the pilot-wave.

    That might be uninteresting except for the next step:the "mental" aspect of the universe can be upgraded to life and consciousness by self-organization. This happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization. In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: the system configures itself so as to set up its own Bohmian pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration which then affects its nonlocal pilot wave which affects the configuration, etc...

    Normally in quantum mechanics this "back-action" is not taken into account. The wave guides the particles but the back-action of the particle onto the wave is not systematically calculated - of course, the back-reaction is physically real: the movement of the particle determines the initial conditions of the next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to characterize such feedback. One reason that this works in practice is that for systems that are not self organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.

    This is an interesting way to utilize nonlocality despite Eberhard's proof that point-to-point signaling by the quantum connection is not in the cards! (If a physical system occupied a dynamical stability based on such a feedback loop then it would be a "nonlocal" physical system, without superluminal signals.)

    Questions of consciousness aside, consideration of "back-action" as a dynamical fact nourishes a suspicion that linear quantum theory is fundamentally an approximation...

    Thus: The quantum behavior of a system of electrons and the behavior of mind ie: 'mental' qualia...Equals:


    Geometry acts on Matter/Energy telling it how to move,

    while Matter/Energy has a reciprocal Back-Reaction on Geometry telling it how to bend.

    Now: Apply the wave fucntion to "judgement" (as in the quoted statement) and what do you have?

    A reciprocal Back-Reaction....


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
    Last edited by Shadowself, 11th May 2015 at 15:46. Reason: typos
    ...to the topTop

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Shadowself For This Useful Post:

    Chester (11th May 2015), InCiDeR (11th May 2015)

  28. #30
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    1,427
    Thanked 1,733 Times in 337 Posts
    I agree with Reality Creation

    Thank you for your comments I request post be closed as there is no reason to get personal on David Wilcock thanks
    ...to the topTop

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jonsnow For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (12th May 2015), Church (11th May 2015), Longbow (13th May 2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •