Thursday, May 14, 2009

A word on David Wilcock's "The 2012 Enigma", or, a paradigmatic demonstration of why I do not fear for my $5,000


2012 is about a new birth.

-David Wilcock

When I first set out to write this post about David Wilcock's "The 2012 Enigma," I was optimistic, even excited. I thought, here's a big name in 2012 apocalypticism. Here's a guy who's going to give me some real meat to chew on. He has a following. He has a slick website where he sells books and magazines. I thought, surely this guy will prove a worthier adversary than the scattered cranks who just sit around plagiarizing each other all day. Surely this guy will be above flaunting his own ignorance as brazenly as the other True Believers do. We're going to really get some good analysis of what is going on, I told myself.

So I pressed play on Wilcock's video. And within five minutes, my eyes had glazed over with tears. I wept, dear reader. I wept for the beleaguered state of rational discourse in the 21st century. I shed tears of darkest despair when I looked mad David Wilcock's image on my laptop square in the eye, and thought: this is the best they can do?

Or maybe those were tears of laughter. I can't remember exactly.

Yes, suffice it to say, David Wilcock is no different from the numerous schizoaffective pencil-peddlers (the link is just one example) who dominate the 2012 / New Age cultural milieu. I expected an intellectual sparring partner; I got a guy who looks for hidden messages in movie posters. I wanted somebody who would put up a fight (not even Gregg Braden would answer my questions, and I sent him everything over a year ago); I got a guy who uses a book that he read when he was seven years old as evidence for ESP. I wanted a challenge, and I got a guy who is very, very seriously challenged.

But please, do not think me merely dismissive. Watch "The 2012 Enigma" yourself. If you can go more than three minutes without squirming, weeping, laughing uncontrollably, or vomiting, you will have proven yourself more restrained than I. Then, after you are finished, I double-dog-dare you look me in the eye and say, "I take David Wilcock very, very seriously." Let me explain. Here I will not give you an exhaustive list of everything that Wilcock does wrong, because such a list would take longer to read than the movie would take to watch. I will instead explain why Wilcock is such a disappointment- because he is just like all the others. His grasp of logic is so terrible, his fundamental research skills are nonexistent, and his willingness to draw ridiculous overarching conclusions from tiny, specific amounts of (often unverifiable or simply flat-out incorrect) 'evidence ' all conspire towards an unmistakable conclusion: David Wilcock is just not worth the time it would take to explain every single mistake he makes. Instead, we can tell him that his very thought processes themselves, the very way he evaluates evidence and arguments, is completely broken.

David Wilcock genuinely disappointed me, but at least he will be a helpful textbook for how not to get yourself a place at the table.

"The 2012 Enigma" is a wandering, meandering, unfocused whirligig complete guided tour through every single piece of bunkum, flim-flammery, hocus-pocus, nonsense, fluff, prattle, bullshit, and chicanery that exists in the established canon of 2012 apocalypticism. We get psychics. We get reincarnation. We get energy crystals. We get quantum this-and-that. Aliens. Ancient Mayans. Wormholes. Screenshots from the movie "Contact." It's all there. But if you asked me what "The 2012 Enigma" was about exactly, I wouldn't be able to tell you, even though I've watched it a dozen times right now. It's just an aimless rant that tries to squeeze as much disconnected nonsense into a semicoherent narrative as possible.

And if you asked me about Wilcock himself...

There are certain modes of behavior or tendencies that people have that should make us suspicious straight from the outset. People who routinely make casual errors that could be corrected by even token amounts of research typically are people who have not done the research and who have no interest in doing the research. People who make sweeping generalizations about complicated topics in physics or mathematics (but who do not even once get into specific details about those topics) are probably trying to cover up the fact that they don't know what they're talking about; they speak quickly and casually to make it seem like what they're saying is totally obvious and very simple, even if it is total crap. People who habitually cite crappy, discredited research without explaining why are people who are ideologically committed to an "everything we know is wrong" mentality. They want you to believe without question that "the Establishment," meaning usually accepted solid science, is hiding something serious from you and that only the crank in question has The Truth.

And when they start telling you that they're the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, you know that you will never even be on the same planet, much less the same playing field. And if you've watched "Enigma," you know just what Wilcock thinks about himself vis-a-vis Edgar Cayce. It ain't pretty.

[Timecodes I cite below are minutes and seconds from the movie, so if I say that Wilcock said some thing x at 1:45, I mean that Wilcock said x one minute and 45 seconds into the movie. If it reads something like 1:10:10, that means that Wilcock said it one hour, ten minutes, and ten seconds in. Also, for the sake of space, I haven't included any pictures from Wilcock's presentation here on the blog, I have linked to them elsewhere. You will see a link that says something like "hey, look at this" and that will take you to a picture of "this."]

I knew I was in for a long ride right around 1:45 when Wilcock told us what 2012 was all about: "a new birth." A new birth of what? Birth from where? People? Souls? The universe? What was wrong with the old birth? What was the old birth? Is this literal or figurative? Why would you gloss over something as crucial to the rest of your movie with such a wanton disregard for the details of your own hypothesis? Is it because you have no details? It is the same everywhere- 2012 apocalypticsts are more than happy to describe 2012 as "a new birth," "a shift in human consciousness," "a spiritual transformation," anything like that, but they are simply too cowardly to venture forth any details that could actually be confirmed or watched for in 2012. If your expectation is specific then it can be disconfirmed, but if it is uselessly vague and broad, you could point to literally anything that happens in 2012 and claim that it was the "new birth" you've been talking about all along.

Not off to a good start, David, but what else ya got? Oh, I see, at 2:15 it looks like you have a picture of Santa Clause holding a billy club and wearing a "New World Order" satchel. Now this I have a hard time getting into. If you believe in a global conspiracy of well-connected politicos, industrialists, bankers, etc., who all work together to unify our globe under a single massive invisible government, don't you think you should spend more than four seconds convincing us of its existence? A revisionist history of a thousand years of global political developments surely merits more than a dropped name set against a childish caricature of a good political cartoon, doesn't it Dave? Of course not. Scarcely a word on it. The impression we get is simple: the "New World Order" obviously exists, and it's so obvious that we can give it a mention and that's that. Forget explaining yourself. Forget justifying yourself.

Wilcock does this sort of thing throughout the presentation. In fact, he does it right again a minute later. At 3:09, he just sort of fires off the factoid that "The underlying fabric of this universe is consciousness, which is what all the old mystics and all the old religious traditions have been saying for thousands of years." Really? Every single religious tradition and every single mystic, ever, says that "the underlying fabric of this universe is consciousness?" Even a single example here would have assuaged my confusion. As little as five seconds could have been spent directing me, the viewer, to a high-quality independent source for that. (And he does give out the names of books he uses as sources for his presentation, but... we'll get to that in a bit.) Nothing. Not a peep of backup, just a premise that we're supposed to accept and swallow wholesale.

And then the reincarnation stuff started.

David Wilcock seems to think that he is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. Why does he think this? Well, because they look sort of like each other and some of Cayce's friends look sort of like Wilcock's friends. I am not kidding and this is not a simplification of the matter. Watch the movie from 3:32-4:15 and tell me that I'm being unfair here. He literally shows slide after slide of people from his life who look like people from Edgar Cayce's life and expects us to believe it.

That Wilcock is either massively self-deluded or a deliberate scam artist is apparent in his selection of the photos he has used for comparison. Notice for example that he used this photo (Cayce is on the left, Wilcock is on the right) and not, say, this one. The photo Wilcock used is black and white, so we can't compare eye color, hair color, or even skin color. They are just photos of the face, so we can't compare height or build. They are also both pictures where they both happen to be looking in the same direction with their mouths open the same amount. He even picked one where Cayce is wearing a hat so we can't compare what their hairstyles or hairlines are like.

The same is true for every other photo on this point that he shows. What's even funnier is that some of his pictures genuinely do not look similar. Consider the physical similarities he sees between his (Wilcock)'s brother (anonymous) and Dr. Ketchum, who was a close associate of Edgar Cayce's. They don't even look like each other! The only thing they have in common is that they both wear glasses and they are both vaguely Caucasian. Wilcock was trying his best, and he still failed on this point.

But the worst part of this whole, agonizing segment is what it says about Wilcock as a person. His grandeur is so profound that, of the six billion or so people that world-renowned fraudulent huckster Edgar Cayce could have been reborn as, he had to choose David Wilcock. Forget that Wilcock's only evidence is that he thinks that certain, perfectly-angled photos look like each other. Just think of what kind of rocks it takes to say, with a completely straight face and full confidence, that one of your subculture's heroes lives inside your brain.

And lets not forget that, where Wilcock lauded the brilliance of "all the old religious traditions" for agreeing with him on the nature of the universe, but he now gives us a reincarnation doctrine that no religious tradition on Earth teaches (I invite you to leave examples of exceptions to this rule in the comments). What religion teaches that when you reincarnate, you reincarnate as someone who looks like you did? Who says that your physical traits are heritable by magic and not by genetics?

The point I am trying to establish here is that David Wilcock is practically inviting us not to take him seriously. How am I supposed to engage rationally with someone who thinks that his dad is Edgar Cayce's dad (apparently your facial hair choices are preserved in the reincarnation process)? What kind of calm dialectical process can I work through with a guy who thinks that his college friend was Edgar Cayce's principal investor?

A callow disregard for even very basic detail is bad enough. He insults your intelligence by trying to summarize the theology of all major religions in a single sentence. He is assuming that you are as gullible as he is when he shows you that Edgar Cayce reincarnation crap (a point that, by the way, he never does anything with). Just being straight-up wrong is also a bad sign.

When you get to do a presentation like this, you usually have pleeeeeenty of time to do research. The fact that David Wilcock gets some minor, nitpicky stuff wrong wouldn't be a problem (everybody makes such errors) if such small mistakes weren't overshadowed by the horrifyingly grand factual mistakes he makes over and over again in his presentation. Am I going to go over every such error here? No, because there are simply not enough hours in the day to give every mistake that Wilcock makes its due attention (though if you really want me to, just say so in the comments and I will set myself to making a complete catalog of Wilcock's errors). The point I want to make here, with just a few examples, is that Wilcock is simply sloppy- he uses bad (even nonexistent!) research to make his points, and betrays a less-then-elementary understanding of the subjects on which he wants us to believe he is an expert. To wit:
  • Throughout the profoundly sleep-inducing section from 6:20 to 10:00ish, Wilcock is making a big deal about... pictures of crop circles. Without getting into the fact that most of the pictures he uses of crop circles are also conspicuously present on professional (human) "circle-maker" artists' websites, Wilcock also makes a curious factual error around 6:41 that I'm glad I caught. He says that a Silbury Hill, Wiltshire, England crop circle has "symbols from the Mayan calendar" that point ahead to the magic year 2012. Now, wait just a second there, Mr. Wilcock. Here is a complete glossary of every single known Mayan calendar glyph in existence. I invite Wilcock to point out exactly which Mayan calendar glyphs can be seen in his photo (since he does not tell us in his video), and to then explain how these glyphs can be expected to point to the year 2012 since there are no Mayan glyphs for mathematical operators in his photo. Here, he is simply wrong about Mayan calendar glyphs and he builds a lengthy argument atop a foundation of something that is untrue. I consider it a total waste of three minutes.

  • While he is sprinting his way through the section on why all modern physics is wrong (he moves with unbelievable speed, with unbelievably little detail, towards several rather unbelievable conclusions), he brings up as evidence for one of his crank hypotheses something called "The Kaznachayev Experiments." He says that it is an experiment that proves that disease effects can be transmitted via quantum effects, thereby reinventing all of physics and biology in a single sentence.

    I have run this name "Kaznachayev" through countless searches, including libraries, JSTOR, Academic Search Premier, Scopus, basically everything that my local college library has access to (which is hundreds of academic journals and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles, and that’s not even getting into how many books they have). There is no reference to this experiment anywhere in any literature. Internet searches reveal only credible sources repeating, often line for line, descriptions of this experiment with no actual confirmation that it has ever been performed, much less repeated. I cannot even confirm the existence of the person who conducted this experiment. The diagram he provides has terms like “graviton lattice,” a term that I can only find being tossed about on 2012 true-believer websites. Here, Wilcock has essentially either fallen for a 2012 apocalypticism hoax, or he knows he is giving us bad data. That is to say, he is either too lazy to look up his own data or he is dishonest. Either way, he is not qualified to lecture on this subject.

    Furthermore, the conclusions of this so-called Kaznacheyev experiment are so profound that we would expect a global, overnight revolution in medical science. The experiment basically goes like this: Kaznacheyev supposedly passed a culture of healthy tissue, and a culture of diseased tissue, through a quartz screen by using “gravitons” in a “structured harmonic lattice” to create a “disease or disorder template.” In short, Kaznacheyev’s experiment, if it had ever happened, would show that diseases can be transmitted via quantum effects. Ridiculous, David. Shouldn't Wilcock have at least looked into it first before telling a room full of people that all of physics is wrong? He of course goes on to build several conclusions from the Kaznacheyev experiments. And they are all a waste, because the experiment he cites does not appear ever to have happened.

  • At 11:00, Wilcock gives us the final confirming evidence that he knows nothing about the physics he describes throughout his video. Does he say something wrong? No, not exactly, just something ridiculous. He throws up the biggest red flag in the industry: the "I am single-handedly reinventing physics now, using a complicated jargon that only people deeply entrenched in my subculture even use and that I will use without explanation so that you, the audience, get accustomed to just accepting as fact anything I tell you without giving you time to think about it" flag. And he does it throughout the video!
Sigh. I hang my head in shame. To think I came to this guy for a fight...

But, wait, what's this? Something interesting happens around 13:23-25. He just casually tosses off the factoidthat his ideas about physics have been confirmed by "black ops people." Excuse me, what? Say that again maybe? Maybe you could explain who you're talking about there- United States Special Forces are looking over your scribbles and agreeing with them?

It's things like this that make me think that Wilcock has a callow disregard for his audience. He treats them like idiots (and based on how many hands go up when at 15:40 he asks who in the audience has ever performed Reiki, most of the people in that room probably are idiots) and he leads them around by the nose on his information. At 19:56, he tells them that Stonehenge and the Pyramids were constructed for "psychic purposes" without a shred of detail. At 20:04 he starts trying to convince them that ESP exists because of unsubstantiated anecdotes from a decades-old trashy screed that Wilcock read and believed when he was 7 years old. He expects his audience to believe literally anything he tells them, and doesn't burden himself with explaining why they should believe it.

See my point here is not (merely) to point out that David Wilcock is either a total fraud or so utterly academically sloppy that he is unqualified to lecture on these points. Notice that I have been able to make my entire indictment of Wilcock merely on examples from the first twenty minutes of his movie or so. The whole thing is that bad.

I won't waste your time explaining how Wilcock gets the Mayan calendar wrong (he makes precisely the same errors every other 2012 apocalypticst makes, by the way). I won't waste your time explaining what Wilcock gets wrong about galactic alignments, pole shifts, or DNA. Why? Not because the mistakes he makes are complicated, nitpicky details of real egghead subjects. Quite the contrary! Wilcock makes mistakes of the sort that can be corrected literally by five seconds on Google. If he had bothered to google the famous double-slit experiments and read about it from an objective party instead of (probably) just lifting his argument wholesale from some other 2012 propagandist (in my experience, these guys plagiarize each other as a matter of habit), he would have known that the experiment was about light and not about atoms. See? His error wasn't complicated. It was insultingly basic.

Wilcock misleads you with his childishly thin consideration of detail. He insults you to your face by tossing out sweeping generalizations ("some people believe HIV is synthetic;" 15:20; "your consciousness has more [energy] than could ever be beamed at you;" 15:27) based on nothing or close to nothing. He confesses to us that he is a total sham (either as a deliberate fraud or as an incompetent buffoon) when he makes clear, simple mistakes. He has told us that he doesn't proofread his own evidence when he told us at 6:41 that his crop circle looks like Mayan glyphs for '2012,' even though any Mayan number higher than 19 would have been written vertically when all of the little shapes that Wilcock has mistaken for Mayan glyphs are horizontal.

Wilcock showed us from 7:00-8:00 that he will say literally anything he wants based on nothing. He points to a picture of a crop circle that looks sort of like a worm and says that it's actually a picture of "broken chromosomes" and that it means "Obviously, the circle-makers are saying, you know, 2012, pay attention to your DNA." Yeah, obviously, even though there's nothing in the picture about 2012, DNA, or paying attention. But the connection between crop circles, aliens, 2012, DNA, and paying attention serves Wilcock's pet theories about the future, and I guess that's all that it takes for him.

I remain disappointed. I remain in search of some real scholarship that can take my money. Stop sending me people who think that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012. Stop sending me people who think that 13 baktuns make up one Long Count in the Mayan calendar. Stop sending me people who use meager anecdotes from their own life to establish huge revolutions in gigantic fields of inquiry (as Wilcock does to medicine when, around 15:40, he tells us that Reiki therapy works because he claims he once felt some pain sort of like the pain an unnamed person in some undisclosed location an indeterminate amount of time ago felt while being treated by an anonymous Reiki dolt, therefore, "so this is real stuff" says Dave word for word).

Start sending me the goods, guys! You only have three years left to take my money!!

Look, David, one final word if I may. If you want a serious place at the table of medicine, cite experiments that really happened. If you want a serious place at the table of physics, don't cite a single, discredited crank who sells pamphlets titled things like "The Mythical Universe of Modern Astronomy." (See 16:37 for the amazing tale of a lone nut named Dewey Larson working against all of physics, whose conclusions Wilcock is more than happy to regurgitate without even a token explanation as to why he prefers Dewey over thousands of real scientists). If you want a serious place at my table, don't infer from the premise "there are some squiggles in the desert" the conclusion that "superadvanced aliens want us to be afraid of the year 2012, and the most obvious way to think they could do it was to drill some pictures into cornfields in England rather than just, you know, telling us."

Seriously. Come back when you've got the evidence, guys.

48 comments:

wassonar said...

there ain't no threatening nibiru foo. ur a hater who can't see past your own materialized world and can't and don't want to believe that there is such thing as karma and humans do have a purpose and intent of living on this third density planet that is undergoing the transition into the fourth density of loving others and thy self in a new world of a hundred times that of the comprehensions of this world. isn't the given excelleration of technology events and weather patterns enough to make you question the perfect pretty lil world we live in today. i mean how good is life right now. we're at the top of the pyramid in terms of advancement in evolution it seems obvious to me. who where u in past reincarne. what lessons did u learn then that are built upon now as what could or could not be a path to the destination of source. u don't feel this drive, this pole!? find someone else to discredit out there and read The Law of One Ra material, then take it bake whatever shit talkin u had to do in ur lil article hear. I leave you now in the love and in the light of the One Infinite Creator. Go forth, then, rejoicing in the power and the peace of the One Infinite Creator. Adonai.

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Wassoner, is your comment a joke? Or am I actually expected to take "fourth density of loving" seriously?

laalbertson said...

Fourth density of loving....Now that's funny!

Ah, anyway, while I have to admit to having quite a few "way out there" beliefs, David Wilcock struck me as....well, just not honest. Because I'm such a religious type, I find that people with my mindset are very prone to be taken in by any hoaky concept, provided it allows them the least amount of honest personal work and development as possible. (What, no daily meditation? No observing one's own flaws? nothin'?)

I don't remember if he mentioned his ideas about who will cross over during the 2012 ascention during his film....which was that if you are just 51% service to other oriented you were good to go. In any case, believing that you are 51% nice guy and just waiting around on your duffer for the good times to come rolling in after 2012 is just too much like waiting for the rapture. The only thing that is required for salvation is a personal belief that you are on the right side, or in the right camp...so to speak. And how many people do you know that aren't right in their own mind?

Anyway, it's refreshing to get an decent opposing opinion here, because when it comes to Mr Wilcock, I tend to come across nothing short of diety worship from many, or mindless slander without objectivity from the rest.

Bobby J said...

Hehe, Wilcock is out there for sure.
He is a good speaker and I actually enjoy listening to his dribble.

He does tend to gloss over things and make assumptions on vague material. I think he is actually trying to figure out how our reality works.

The double slit he mentioned is real, and its not about just photons. Basically the double slit is something that even today is unexplained. Basically the observer changes the reality.
Quantum entanglement is strange too.

We started with light then with atoms on the double slit. Now we have done it with larger carbon molecules. Which might mean that everything is part wave and particle. When we do not observe matter takes the form of a wave. When we observe the wave breaks down into particles. Very strange but real part of physics.

He takes it a step further without much evidence to back it up.

I have a physics degree and know that there is much more to the universe than meets the eye. I do believe many things will be explained via quantum physics but not by Mr. Wilcock.

He may be a charlatan but I feel he actually trying to figure this world out. I like to listen then debunk what he says. Some of it is thought provoking.

There are many strange things that are real but unexplained, he simply puts his twist on how it might be explained.

There is evidence that "SOME" people and maybe all of us at times have some kind of esp. I have yet to see a good explanation of exactly how this information is transferred.
My hopes is that quantum physics will explain it someday. entanglement of photons, they seem to communicate at up to 56,000 times the speed of light. This experiment was done in the past 10 years. No good explanation of the HOW only that it is. It can't be used for FTL two way conversations, at least not yet.

Bobby J said...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2952

I think this is the carbon double slit experiment he was referring to.

He may be correct on this but its based on conjecture. We do not know the cut off for quantum effects. If we find that we can effect a virus just by knowing which slit it went through then one wonders if this would apply to more complex organisms.

He is bridging that gap by taking information learned from esp experiments and anecdotal information from near death experiences and connecting the dots.

It maybe true but its not provable.

I don't care for his explanation of dual universes. I read some of
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/nlst/nlst08.htm
that he referred to and its poorly written. I'll read the rest of it but so far I am not impressed.

stephen said...

Thanks for your eloquent and concise review. I too was wading through DW's 'Enigma' presentation waiting for the camera to pan the audience for a glimpse of someone's facial expression to better help me understand what in the world he was talking about.
Certainly Cayce's reborn mind, loosely used in this context, would stand on it's own credence and such vast amounts of 'cosmic knowledge' would be isolated to the 4:00 or 10:00 minute YOUTUBE video.
How much did his peers spring for a seat to his presentation and how far into it could they be refunded? These are the truly burning questions that only an enlightened seer could answer. Bringing in the unsure, frightened dollars suits him well. He IS good at that. Looking forward to the 2013 edition of his presentations. Hopefully they include some other reincarnated soul, preferably one that hit the health clubs and tanning beds on the way to the meeting rooms.

NotMarkk said...

steven... "such vast amounts of 'cosmic knowledge' would be isolated to the 4:00 or 10:00 minute YOUTUBE video."

I agree that such information in a short period of time is ridiculous, but it doesn't matter if it's a "YOUTUBE", metacafe, megavideo, redtube, youporn, photobucket or googlevideo video... the host is irrelevant.

NotMarkk said...

I read this post hoping for a few factual pieces of evidence dis-crediting David, unfortunatly I only found one such fact. I would appreciate it if you could provide more.

Thanks

Praxis Node said...

some people are just so narrow minded its sad to see that regarless of what is said if they don't understand, they need proof, if that is what you need then go and get the proof yourself. do your due diligence and find out the fact for your self, start by looking at the man in the mirror and stop expecting "they" or "those" to give you the anwers you seek, seek your own answers, and if you can understand that then you need to go back to school

NotMarkk said...

Praxis Node:

I'm not narrow minded and I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I think David Wilcock is a fraud, I found that out with a quick Google search. Unfortunately, I know someone who believes him, so I needed so find a few facts to discredit him quickly, as I’m lazy. This seemed like a good place to get those facts, unfortunately there was only one. Considering the entire post is based on discrediting David, that’s pretty poor.

I suggest you don't make your own assumptions and conclusions about people from one sentence. i.e. "I would appreciate it if you could provide more." Especially considering the author said to ask for if necessary. Even if I did believe David and wanted some evidence to discredit him, there’s nothing wrong with being lazy and asking for the evidence to save me the hassle.

“some people are just so narrow minded its sad to see that regarless of what is said if they don't understand, they need proof”
I agree. Although to come to that conclusion form my post you would have to assume I believed David.

“, if that is what you need then go and get the proof yourself. do your due diligence and find out the fact for your self”
Some truth to it as a general quote, but if the subject is of little importance and it’s possible for someone else to do the work, then relying on someone else is a good idea to save time.

“, start by looking at the man in the mirror and stop expecting "they" or "those" to give you the anwers you seek, seek your own answers,”
To come to that conclusion form my post you would have to assume I expected such a thing.

“and if you can’t understand that then you need to go back to school”
Cheap shot at an insult.

GL HF

yd said...

Nice work. whenever someone gives me info about this 2012 stuff my response will be the link to your blog

Lenout said...

As the "reverend" Frederick Taylor Gates apparently said during a speech - "...the people will yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands".

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

A nutshell for you to chew over.

shurpu said...

I would appreciate it if you would not perform the same techniques you criticize. Such as glossing over facts, and attributing this hastiness to time/space constriction. You spend the majority of your article name-calling and expressing your personal distaste rather than addressing the quantum physics and political figures at the base of his, granted, stretched conclusions. Your emotional exaggeration is very unacademic and only serves to discredit the authenticity of your intellectual station. I understand that there are many disappointments in your search for convincing evidence, as anyone who has genuinely researched this topic will find, but ultimately, I feel that the only true conviction comes from a raw undeniable subjective experience of something beyond the ordinary laws of cause and effect, or what many call, 'synchronicity.' I am not defending David Wilcock, I am simply addressing the root of this discourse. There are those with hope, who encounter speakers with whom their internal sense of knowing resonates, and those with hate, who seek contest (sometimes violently) with anything that challenges the rigidity of our currently oppressive doctrine of science and medicine. If you do have an understanding of 'compassion,' or rather 'empathy,' in which you are aware of bodies and environments outside of your five physical senses and the ability to react with a faculty more subtle than the rational mind, for instance, in family relations, in majestic pieces of art, in the beauty of nature, in the courage of human rights activists and the genius of explorers on the frontiers of our reality, then you can respect what David is attempting to do, however sloppily in your opinion. He is doing his best to give credit to the pursuit of freedom and harmony in a world lead by tyrants creating the illusion of their necessity. If you despise fraudulence, it is because you have a love of truth and desire a world in which honesty and integrity come before the need to control what people think, and individuals live by their word. I challenge you to live by your values fully before investing your attention into such condemnation.

Ross Hamilton Hill said...

some Willcocks error
1. he desc ribes Shiva as a female, he is nothing but a male God as anyone with any knowledge of hinduism would know.
2.He describes the pineal gland as the highest chakra, it is not, the crown chakra , under the top of the head is the sahasra, again any adept of yoga would know this.
3. He thinks the the tsunami fo 2004 was caused by a atomic bombds planted by his conspiracy theory enemis because the epicenter now doesn't grow anything. the epicenter for the tsum=nami was in the pacific ocean about 1000ks from any land.
4. again in his webpage he says the haitian earthquakes were alos the result of atomic bombs, yet aqny geologist would know that earthquakes seismic patterns have both pre and post quakes shock waves, they would not look anything like an atomic explosion 9 my son whi is a geolist got a good laugh from this.)
5. Wicock believes the earthquakes were masteminded to destabilish the haitian economy as part of his banker conspiracy theories. but haiti a tiny country has one of the lowest GDP's in the world, there is no real economy to destabilish.
6. In one of his videos he holds up the yellow pajamas that he saved because he wore them when 5 years old and had his first out of the body experience. The pajamas would fit a 15 year old, they are 3 times the size of a 5 year olds pyjamas.
In conclusion, david Wicock is a very bright lad, who builds up a phantasmagorical story with which to lure gullible people, especially the young and less well educated into following him and donating money to him. He does stimulate ideas and thinking but most of what he says is bunkum.

WDF said...

In brief I believe David Wilcock is a fraud anyone who makes money from this type of information is questionable.

However I do not dismiss the subject matter he is talking about. Yes it is far out there but I think reality is way wackier than fiction, to totally dismiss this subject matter it is ridculous.

My advice is do your own reasearch and come to your own conclusions. There is too much unexplaned information on life itself to be able to take what is presented to us in mainstream education.

Watch Esoteric agenda and if you want to dissprove that I would like to see it because its full of factual information.

David Wilcock does have some interesting things to say but I do think he is taking advantage of this kind of subject matter.

Regardless of what you think of 2012 something is happening and that date is of great importance but we wont find out until then. Whether it be a massive catastophic event or simply a shift in energy which could go unoticed Its not something we will fully understand but the date is of importance.

Why so much information and dissinformation about this date if it was just nothing??

Anyways three people who have not yet been discredited for me are Nassim Haramein and George Kavassilas and Ben Stewart. (If you don't know who they are research people because you can't dismiss this subject matter without looking them up.)

Again follow no man and make up your own mind I dont believe them fully but I feel I am being told enough of the truth to come to my own conclusion. I think Instead of disproving people you should concentrate on what makes sense to you as the truth.

raelynismine said...

1. Your critique is poor. I was hoping for the other side's take...but it's just a bunch of name calling. For example:

You say that you can't find a single source for either the scientist or the experiment of Kaznachyev's Expriment, even though you have apparently searched exhaustively all the resources of the world. Then how come....

Dr. Vlail Kaznacheyev is a Director for the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine in Novosibirsk, Russia. His experiment involving Conditions for Distant Intercellular Interaction During Ultraviolet Radiation was published in Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine on July 31, 1978 (pages 492-495) and describes in detail the experiment. Is THAT specific enough for you?

2. You keep saying that he gives a statement, but doesn't back it up. If he does back it up, the research is either wrong, or debunked.

You just made a statement, and backed it up with improper research. Note number one.

Pot, meet kettle. You're black.

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Dear raelynismine,

1. No it isn't. Here is the complete table of contents for that journal:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/hlt7607h776m/?sortorder=asc&v=condensed

Please do not waste my time by lying to me about these things. Some of us actually do our research.

2. Your second statements becomes a sad joke after 1.

Boy howdy, you people are bad at this.

shurpu said...

1. Shiva is simply a name for the 'Supreme God' or 'Eternally Pure' or 'Lord.' The use of the name in the feminine denotes the worshiper's preference, while the reality of God is androgynous, as any true Yoga devotee would agree.

2. The pineal gland is the corresponding endocrine influence on the body from the crown chakra. The pituitary for the brow chakra. The thyroid for the throat chakra. The thymus for the heart chakra. The spleen for the solar plexus.
The gonads for the sacral chakra.
The adrenals for the root chakra.

3. Life does grow on the ocean floor... usually. Even after earthquakes. This particular radius was found barren.

4. The earthquakes were triggered by strategically placed nukes. The aim was to create a diversion strong enough to cancel payment to another country for debt. Haiti was an excuse, not a target.

5. What 15 year old wears yellow pajamas?

And to your other post:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7920095/Weather-Weapons-Scalar-Electromagnetic-weapons

Page 59, number 72 in the references.

Vlail Kaznacheyev, Novosibersk - Electromagnetic Bioinformation in Intercellular Interactions, Psi Research.

Black...

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Shurpu, I'm trying to restrain myself after reading 4. I have a number of options: I could ask for evidence, but I feel like that would be a waste of time, so I'll just let it slide for now.

And as for the new attempted citation of Kaznacheyev's nonsense, two things:
1. So now we admit that we've left the realm of peer-reviewed, scientific study and entered a place where citations from an ancient, pseudoscientific, long-since discontinued almost ironically-titled "journal" count as heavily as a fraudulent citation of a reputable journal.

I think that the point stands.

And 2., I can't even find back issues by which to verify the claim.

Good heavens, you have been busy tonight. Did the link get dropped somewhere popular?

shurpu said...

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOPHYSICS


BIBLIOGRAPHY ON BIOPHOTON RESEARCH, INTEGRATIVE BIOPHYSICS AND RELATED SUBJECTS


http://www.lifescientists.de/publication/bibliography1-1.htm

Kaznacheyev, Vlail P. / Kuznetsov, P.G., et al.: Some problems of quantum biology and the question of information transmission in biological systems (in Russian). Avtometriya, No.2 (1965), pp.3-10.

eh? I can just keep listing these but at some point you have to actually go look for yourself.

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Thank you for yet another bibliography that cites an article that does not seem to exist. Please come back when you have found the article, not something that claims that the article exists.

Lenout said...

Anybody wishing to collect the $5000 may as well forget it. This dude does not want to pay up. He admits his ignorance of the subject matter at hand by his own comments. Could be the old battle between Ego and the Higher Self. Reminds me of Monkey going to the 5 pillars of heaven ..... As I said earlier, when the student is ready ..... etc etc. A tip maybe? Read somebody elses material other than just Wilcock's. Get a perspective, or should I say, curved space? heh heh. BTW the changes have already started - lick your finger and stick it out the window to feel it. Infinite love and gratitude.

shurpu said...

I've used every search engine I know trying to find an actual article. Although the INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOPHYSICS obviously isn't reputable enough to prove the existence of this Doctor or his experiments, nor is the release of this film-

http://www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/watermovie.html

featuring Dr. Vlail Kaznacheyev along with over a dozen other world-wide reputable scientists-
I can only state that for some reason, Google, Yahoo, Bing, AltaVista, and Ask, all fail to bring up a place to view his articles. Perhaps because he is Russian and the cold war is not really over, I don't know, I can only guess. The fact remains, that this man exists, and his experiments are being cited by people who cannot do so without credibility.

I'm not on here to prove Nibiru is coming, or the significance of 2012, and I honestly couldn't give a damn if you offered up a million dollars for someone to prove that fairies are real.

The bottom line is that a tremendous amount of information is being hidden from the general public and anyone who attempts to reveal it is slandered and labeled as a pseudo-this or quack-that. The discoveries of quantum physics and psychosomatic biology are documented well enough and beyond a doubt to prove that the world view we were taught in school is false, perpetuating a sense of lack, sterility, and separateness. The only evidence I need to show that human beings are beautiful and powerful, that the fearful and hateful will inevitably be healed, that the universe is intelligent and benevolent, that life is more than material, that reality is deeper than our senses and instruments, is in the tender and triumphant experience I share with a growing majority of Earth's population. It is in the Heart. And the mind operating without the wisdom of the Heart is bent on destroying the perception of love and grace for the sake of its own delusion of superiority. The evidence of this is clearly and sadly engraved across the planet. This is ignorance, and it is this we must abolish.

I don't know who you are, but the frustration you feel isn't because egoistic morons challenge your intellect. It's because your trapped inside your head. When's the last time you FELT something real, instead having a whole battery of scientists confirm it with probes and yardsticks? There is an old saying... you can be told your whole life that bananas are bitter... but it only takes one bite to realize the truth.

I am done battling you. It is your ring and you may parade proudly, beat your chest and shout victory while continuing to dash the weak onslaught of woo woo. But please consider my words. I am sincere. If all of this banter lights up your lunatic alert, then I depart with one last repulsive flash.

I love you. Because you are a person living in this world with family and friends, struggling with the same adversity and enjoying the same pleasures. We are brothers on this Earth. And I hope one day you will share the peace of that.

-Zack

Kyle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kyle said...

Actually, I take back my previous comment.

F. D SPLASH ROOF REPAIRS said...

I would like to start by calling you an idiot, ..... What is your oppinion about our existence? Did "GOD" make us?...If there is a fool and a joker in this blog, then that joker is you, you have a lot of nerve to sit there with your stupid bible in front of you and preach to all the other idiots like you.....that acctaly belive in a BooK that was writen 5000 years ago....By the way even that book was writen by people that existed 3000 years before you Goofs decided to make it yours....By goofs I mean all cristians, jews, muslims....You all are feeding us this shit since we are kids, you indoctrinate kids and adults with that crap that you call religion....The world is way beyond what you think and what Jesus said....so wake up, Give some respect to people that are acctualy searching for the truth, unlike you sitting his big ass in front a computer and critic the ones that are tryin to find out what the real meaning of life is....So again I would like to finish by Calling you an IDIOT one more time.
" God Bless You "

F. D SPLASH ROOF REPAIRS said...

shurpu.....Thank you very much for your post!!!!!, I was trying to do the same .....but my anger got the best of me, anger for the people that deny everything that is not religion or was not told by our " leaders.....Again Thank you.

John said...

I don't believe in what he had to say either, but you are disproving him with the same logic that he used to prove the same points. You both lack something, evidence.

Roxy said...

HERE IS A VIDEO I FOUND ABOUT THIS BLOG..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTMdKul8mQ


CHEERS ROXY:::

Bob said...

Excellent blog, Goodnewsatheism.

There certainly are some dumb characters out there. (And your nutcase is way nuttier than my nutcase.) What's astonishing is that that there are so many people who will defend them, and to such length and with such vigour.

That combination of winning charisma and naivety - when it's triggered, it's virtually set in stone for life whether they want it or not. Once someone has deceived him or herself into some way of thinking and has managed to gain a devoted and paying following from it, it's got to be very hard for them to turn back.

It would be a very, very long climb for someone like Wilcock to return to any sort of reality. Poor critter.

... said...

Interesting blog...I started watching the dude and his Enigma 2012 talk but realised as soon as he brought up the Edgar Casey photofits that he is in fact a charlatan...I hope people are not spending too much money on him...he says at the very beginning something like 'here is a picture of what I was training you on yesterday'! He uses the word TRAINING...that should have put any reasonable person off!

onefourtyfour said...

" I think David Wilcock is a fraud, I found that out with a quick Google search."

You did not find proof of this. Proof would be evidence that David does not believe what he is saying, and that he is deliberately deceiving.

It is egocentric of you to think that David put all of it together to directly respond to your "Nibiru Challenge." Fact: He did not.

Think of David as an entertainer speaking to an audience that wants to hear what he is saying. I challenge you to point to a direct example of David's "show" hurting or debilitating an other person.

Here is a list of things you could create for a never realized monetary reward for proof:

Dark Matter ( science spends thousands on this yearly.)
Jesus (or any other prophet)
Joseph Smith's golden plates
Any and all dreams.
That anyone loves.
What you ate for breakfast ten years ago today.
What you eat for breakfast ten years from today.
Heck, you can't offer proof for anything you have done in the past. Certificates aren't proof. Pictures aren't even proof. They only allude to assumptions drawn from reasoning. Proof is not available.

You want something that you can't ever attain and you gloat that this your wisdom. Of course, I am in the same boat now that I decided to type this.

bazaardeals said...

Wilcock said some things I found to be interesting, valuable, and most likely true however he said more things that I found to be contradictory, confusing, and without explanation. Also, at least at the event in which I saw Wilcock, he was surrounded by Masons whether that was by his choice or not, I don't know. However it made me uneasy about his intentions knowing that he was surrounded by Masons and that he states some of his sources to be top insider Illuminati.

Lenout said...

Hey there folks. I was just passing and dropped in to see what has been happening here. Looks like this blog's originator has given up on the poop that he left for others to quibble over - that's his entertainment. On the other hand, there are more important things to think about in life, like ridding the world of skateboarders by tasering them, or if Brittany flashed her snatch again, or making the naming of a Danish couple's kids a major world media event. Gotta go buy the peanuts, KFC, beer and get comfortable on the couch in front of the plasma TV.

idontcare said...

Just want to say it amazes me how words can cloud a concept. The ultimate message david wilcock wants to spread is to love. People get so lost on the way to the beach they never get to see the ocean. It does not really matter if you believe him or not and I find it ironic that you used the same techniques you complain about. Talk about lending credit to his assessment that the things we do not like in other people are the things we do not like about ourselves.

Can we not all agree that we should love and help one another regardless of beliefs? If we did the world would be a much better place I think. I wish you luck in whatever you do and thanks for at least trying to provide another side to the argument.

P.S. Its a bit egotistical for a 250,000 year old species to think they know ANYTHING about a universe that is millions of years old. Especially considering we have FIVE senses to experience with. There are animals that have more and better senses than us which they use to perceive the world. What makes you think we absolutely KNOW anything?

Midnight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Midnight said...

I agree, the guy is either insane if he believes in all that he says OR he's just a fraud. He actually claims that Gaddafi had a device with which he could see the future and that's why we went to Libya. Seriously? And he is so special to know that - WHY? There's a "trick" which the "lecturers" like him use - they try to convince people that everyone around is lying to them, government, authorities, church; and he (wilcock) puts himself out there as a "savior", telling the "truth" and "opening people's eyes". It's very sad to me, cuz there're people who are naive and will follow him and other conspiracy theorists unfortunately, cuz they need to be :saved", to believe in something. I agree with some things that he says like we should love ourselves and people around us. Dah! But this doesn't justify any of the lies that he says.

sod said...

Interesting... the mixed bag of opinion on this blog.

I'm not keen on the name calling, we should be respectful of each others opinions and beliefs. They are, after all, personal to us, and based on information we have learned in through our individual experience. If I knew something to be true and could evidence my claim I certainly wouldn't belittle you for your ignorance.

I agree David's message is love. I also agree there are some far out concepts presented in David's seminars that are seemingly unsubstantiated, however, a lot of it resonates with me as being highly plausible.

As for the Russian experiment... could you be looking for this experiment by Russian Academician V.P. Kasnacheev?:

Laboratory of Biophysics, Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Siberian Branch, Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR, Novosibirsk. Translated from Byulleten'' √Čksperimental''noi Biologii i Meditsiny, Vol. 87, No. 5, pp. 468–471, May, 1979.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h107848j00l9u6q2/

"in 1966 Kaznacheev et al. showed that cells in tissue culture (detector culture) grown in special chambers on quartz supports capture the distinguishing features of radiation from..." check the rest out for yourself.

Assumptions on spelling of foreign documents or publication dates can make for inaccurate research so never rely on those things... It often pays to dig deeper.

I'm not sure what this Nibiru stuff you speak of is all about but I believe David Wilcock is on the right track. I'd certainly rather have a positive unsubstantiated story to believe in than to focus my thoughts on a documented scientific peer review white paper that paints a negative future or a meaningless existence.

If you don't thats all good too. Enjoy a peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life and try not to let such trivial things anger you so much as we may never know.

Malcolm said...

Stop the hate! It is tearing us apart. Right or wrong, it is about love. Peace!

Unknown said...

If you want the real deal read the handbook of the navigator and bending god

1e87d19e-b1ec-11e0-9dca-000bcdca4d7a said...

You are right. Your $5000s is completely safe. That is because you are a complete waste of time to read, and nobody takes you seriously. Post some actual arguments, and maybe there would be something to challenge. Just being insulting to the degree of blithering idiot is not an argument. Grow up.

oana said...

well...You had me at "what rebirth?". Or, better said, you hadn`t. If you don`t understand or feel the concept of transformation of self, ascension, awakening, then, really, what do you know? It means you haven`t experienced the awakening which, by the way, it is not scientifically proven...funny, isn`t it..and in that case, you are a rationalist with no faith or contact with the divine, and the age of rationalism has passed, thank God. I hope you will get to a point when you will use the reason of the heart and not focus so exclusively on the phisical mind that can only perceives illusion.
Oana

0523xixviiii said...

hahaha.. whosover you are, my dear, question your own credentials first, by asking this question ~ " Who am I ?!" & the answer you will get will clear all your own doubts...
Good Luck :)

Krish said...

i appreciate that you are not taking all this just like that and inquiring into its validity. But the way of your analysis is not foolproof. If you think that the life that we live now on earth is AWESOME then you may have not seen the life in full sense or you are talking like that famous "frog in well" proverb. I sense an atheistic frame of mind in this article. Let me tell you how i started to believe in mythological books. Some times when life challenges a lot, there is a sort of sharp thought that flashes like light(call it intuition). I got such a unexplainable thought about reincarnation. And some time later i read Bhagavadgeeta(famous hindu book on dialogue b/w god and human), and lo! i came across a verse which talked about the same intuition i had. So then i understood the real meaning, in the sense i experienced that verse.If i had not got that intuition, i would had just read that verse without faith in it. So then i learnt that even all the other verses should be damn core truths which needs intuition to reveal itself. There it talks about 1day of Brahma and 1night of Brahma. And im ignorant abt the formula to convert this into earth days. But it clearly says there ought to be an equivalent time of dissolution as that of creation, but i dont think its in 2012 because the world is not in such a state that it needs a dissolution, but may be it needs a revival of consciousness. And i have faith(not mere belief) in reincarnation and an age of love without selfishness and hatred. So as for me i don't know the validity of David wilcock's hypothesis, but i am really interested in his works. Its quite different from the routine way of life and at the core seems to have a better intention for a better conscious loving world than having a cruel selfish unconscious attitude.And go read "Power of Now" if you haven't, it says your inner world decides your outer world.

MAJESTIC-XII COMIC BLOG said...

My name is Justin Leach and here is your evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzNVOJ_XceY&feature=channel_video_title

Alternative Energy said...

The stuff that David talks about is one way of looking at the spirit.

It is true if you believe it and not true is you don't believe it.

Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

ClayWells said...

I think David was exposed as a fraud when he fake cried on live radio. He claimed that someone threatened his life because he was going to expose, to the whole world, the fact that there are billions of tons of gold hidden in underground vaults. The whole thing sounded so fake, including the fake politician that called in to console him. After that I couldn't even trust Project Camelot. It's a shame that there are sham artists out there that are smearing the true UFO community and making them out to be fools. Sometimes I wonder if these guys are fronts of the government to try and make the truth about UFO's look like hoax's.

Srikanto Bormon said...

If a court ruling for failure to predict the future is not overturned by wiser minds, it will be very harmful for public safety.

predict science

prdictions

who is edgar casey

cayce edga

are edgar cayce

what is the environment

environment topics

environment

seminar topics

water pollution

topics on the environment

topics for environment