Please stop attacking David Wilcock, and Project Camelot

I'm starting to become upset about the amount ATS members are attacking David Wilcock, recently. He is consistently accused of being a plagiarist and a fraud.

David is a publicist. As far as I know, that has always primarily been the case. He promoted Carla Reuckert's work, the Law of One books, among other things. He did not write those, and as far as I am concerned, he never claimed to. If there has been material from other people which he has used in his presentations, then I agree that he should make sure he gives those people attribution, but it does not mean that he should be reflexively attacked.

I want to point out to people here, that for me at least, research has always been a process of synthesis, for the most part. That means, I find a lot of different otherwise isolated fragments, different pieces of the puzzle, and I am then able to figure out how to incrementally put said previously isolated pieces of information together. In this way, a cohesive picture eventually starts to emerge. It doesn't happen all at once, and there is no way known that I am able to do it on my own.

I suspect David's journey has been much the same, at least in terms of that process. So at times he'll mention things which might have originated from someone else. The intent isn't necessarily to rip anyone else off, or steal credit from them. I tell people about things I've found online all the time, and it would be impossible for me to remember specifically, where every single one of them came from. That doesn't mean that I'm some evil charlatan who is trying to make money from everyone else's work.

I was on David's Ascension2K mailing list, back in 2005. This was the period during which I first began to leave Christianity, and started to learn about the way things really were, as opposed to what I had been taught. Ra's information about the distinction between the Service to Others and Service to Self polarities, became bedrock-level elements of my view of reality; they have been tested many times in the seven years since, and remain the most robust ethical model that I have encountered yet. This information was channeled by Carla Reuckert, yes; but I wouldn't have encountered it if it wasn't for David's list.

David isn't perfect. During my time on the list, there was a certain amount (although it was minor) of viewing himself as a guru, and he also is at times a little more paranoid about the Illuminati or people attacking him, than I think he really needs to be. But some of the material that he has promoted/passed on, (even if it was produced by other people originally) has been of enormous benefit to me, and although I can't really claim to know him personally, I admit that I do love the man.

I also want to say a couple of words here about Project Camelot, because I've noticed that they have been taking a fair amount of heat here on ATS over the last few days, as well.

As I have said before, in another thread, I personally consider Project Camelot to be a quasi-fictional form of entertainment; analogous in some ways to The X Files; the WingMakers would be an even better analogy. Some of it might be the real truth; but the fact that that is the case, adds to the entertainment factor for me. It doesn't cause me to want to engage in vitriolic attacks of the people who produce it, or label them as frauds, if I find out that something from a PC interview isn't true. I truthfully don't particularly care whether every PC interview I've ever seen has been complete and outright fiction, because a lot of it, in my own mind, has been good fiction; it's enjoyable, and makes me think. That is all I ask for it, and considering that I've never paid for any of it either, I feel like I've been given a good deal.

If every member of the UFO or "alternative," scene that I've come across has been nothing more than a crank, then I consider several of them to have earned their money as entertainers, regardless. I didn't watch Star Trek expecting every episode of it to be the gospel truth; it's absurd to necessarily expect all of this material to be, either. Bill and Kerry possibly do need to start issuing a disclaimer to this effect; it might get a few of the trolls off their backs.

I will also say that I believe that Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy's split was a positive move. Without being excessively vindictive towards her, I do genuinely believe that Kerry is suffering from cerebral narcissism. She visibly enjoys taking camera time away from her interviewees, and most of the time what she says, is a lot less interesting to me than what they do. So I will admit that yes, I do have somewhat more respect for Bill than I do for her. Usually her comments don't consist of more than summarising what the interviewee has said, or bragging about her own supposed level of understanding.

That doesn't mean, however, that I want to be excessively cruel to Kerry. Narcissism is a mental illness, and people who suffer from it deserve and need our compassion. It isn't going to benefit either Kerry or ourselves if we are excessively vindictive towards her, for her attention-seeking behaviours. We need to simply acknowledge the fact that yes, she does that, and move on. If we don't like her interviewing style (and I don't, personally, as mentioned) then we are under no obligation to watch her.

I will admit that I've always enjoyed listening to Bill talk, however. This might sound a little excessively preferential, but Bill does not talk excessively, and I feel as though he generally does not speak unless he genuinely has something meaningful to say. Usually he also reserves his comments for an introduction before the interview as well, so he doesn't take time away from the interviewee, after they have already started talking.

Bill also has what I consider to be a very measured, balanced, and unusually mature attitude towards the Illuminati. It's too easy for us to fall into the trap of simply condemning them as demoniacs, without acknowledging our own responsibility for the fact that they exist and have been in power; and I think it's a good thing that Bill reminds us to do that.

Another thing. I do not view either Bill or Kerry as being excessively financially opportunistic. There is a very large amount of material on their websites which can be downloaded without any money necessarily being given to them at all; it is there purely for the price of your own bandwidth. There are other people who produce channelled and other material, who literally won't allow you to have any of it, unless you pay for it; so anyone who is going to accuse these two of only being in it for the money, needs to give serious consideration to that point first. If they are hypothetically out to make money, their business model is far too loose to be truly effective, on that score.

There are other people in the "alternative media," scene who may or may not be frauds; I can't claim to have information about all of them, so I can't comment on all of them. These three, however, (with the possible exception of Kerry) I not only have watched, but also do strongly value and appreciate, so I would very much appreciate it if the readership of this forum would stop attacking them. If you don't like them, don't watch them.

reply to post by petrus4


Most people here posting I think do watch Star Trek and put a lot of faith in the show - asking them to not mercilessly criticize someone is a little like asking the piranhas not to eat the meat you are throwing in the bowl. You really have to consider your sources on some of these remarks.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by petrus4

 

Most people here posting I think do watch Star Trek and put a lot of faith in the show - asking them to not mercilessly criticize someone is a little like asking the piranhas not to eat the meat you are throwing in the bowl. You really have to consider your sources on some of these remarks.

Then I would consider such people to be mentally ill, or at least highly immature.

David Wilcock is a great lecturer, i love everything he has to say and of course i keep an open mind in most cases.
Most will bash him and say hes spitting bs for money.. but this man is great, he has so much knowledge, very interesting to sit down an listen to for hours.

Just as you have a right to your opinion, don't you think others on ATS have a right to theirs? If people don't like David Wilcock or Project Camelot, that is their right, and they have a right to voice their opinion. It's free speech here at ATS, and public figures like Wilcock, Cassidy and Ryan are fair game. It would be like me telling everyone here they need to stop attacking President Obama - that just isn't ever going to happen.

Other members have a right to attack David Wilcock, and you have a right to defend him. If it's too much for you, maybe you need to get off of ATS - no disrespect intended.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by petrus4

 

Most people here posting I think do watch Star Trek and put a lot of faith in the show - asking them to not mercilessly criticize someone is a little like asking the piranhas not to eat the meat you are throwing in the bowl. You really have to consider your sources on some of these remarks.

Then I would consider such people to be mentally ill, or at least highly immature.

Would you now?

People are people.
They are fairly predictable.
Get used to it.

Factual attacks are an important part of the scientific process, it is quite clear that something is going on, but what is it exactly?

Some personal attacks and blind discrimination is a bit weak, but quite common on the internet. Anyone who builds a large public profile is going to get some of it.

I'll always listen to something David Wilcock has come up with, or put together.

I give him credit for his theories. Even if some of his science is "pseudoscience".
( i do think he's on the right path though. I don't think we know nearly as much as we'd like to believe).

What has bothered me about David is this egotistical side to him that has seemed to grow since he became somewhat of a icon to certain people. I mean really, read just a bit of one of his articles and count how many times the words "I" , "me", and "myself" come up.

He just seems a little theatrical too at times..but hey i mean life is a miracle, and a magical, mysterious, wonderful thang! So i guess it's ok to get excited and be a bit silly

But darn, you really wrote a lot. Is that you David? His sister? Brother?

jusss kidding! (but if i'm right please tell us!)

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Just as you have a right to your opinion, don't you think others on ATS have a right to theirs? If people don't like David Wilcock or Project Camelot, that is their right, and they have a right to voice their opinion. It's free speech here at ATS, and public figures like Wilcock, Cassidy and Ryan are fair game. It would be like me telling everyone here they need to stop attacking President Obama - that just isn't ever going to happen.

Other members have a right to attack David Wilcock, and you have a right to defend him. If it's too much for you, maybe you need to get off of ATS - no disrespect intended.

People absolutely have the right to dislike him. I dislike Kerry Cassidy, or at least her behaviour, and was open about admitting such.

Disliking someone is one thing. Trolling of the kind that I've seen on here, however; or repeatedly harping about plagiarism etc, is another. If you don't like someone, the mature thing to do is to dissociate yourself from them, ("change the channel,") and move on, rather than continue to wallow in it.

reply to post by petrus4

Star and Flag, friend, good post. I too wish the constant attacks on Willcox would stop. Don't believe him? Fine, don't read him. Hate what he says? Stay off his website. I am currently reading "The Source Field Investigations," "The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations behind the 2012 Prophecies." By David Willcox.
Good reading, I could hardly put it down last night. I personally believe David came unto his information the same way I did, years of research on the pertinent material, and reading many books.

My take on Wilcox is that he's a bit like David Icke mixed with Alex Jones. He's got a bit of good evidence mixed with a bunch of biased opinions based on far out claims (depending on how you look at it), and delivers it in a slightly annoying manner. He comes across as a nerdy academic new age dork with zero fashion sense and a bad haircut (sorry but his girlfriend would even tell him this if she loved him). The picture of him holding his chin in his Star Trek shirt makes everyone i know giggle (they call him mr wizard), sad thing is holding his chin balances his egg head out. He is one of the easier targets.

I know this all sounds like an attack, it's actually constructive criticism. I actually hope he gets a fashion consultant that doesn't frequent Comicon, and a decent hairstylist that isn't a Supercuts dropout, then maybe get a harley.

bottom line
His message is positive and instills hope and has some good sources, and he doesn't instill fear (much) or make me buy stuff (much), but his image and delivery sorta suck... and yes people should be much nicer to him and just be more creative with their constructive criticism.

Originally posted by petrus4

I'm starting to become upset about the amount ATS members are attacking David Wilcock, recently. He is consistently accused of being a plagiarist and a fraud.

I sense your angst.

But it doesn't change the fact that David Wilcock is a fraud and a plagiarist.

I hope the best in the future for you.

Originally posted by petrus4

I also want to say a couple of words here about Project Camelot, because I've noticed that they have been taking a fair amount of heat here on ATS over the last few days, as well.

As I have said before, in another thread, I personally consider Project Camelot to be a quasi-fictional form of entertainment; analogous in some ways to The X Files; the WingMakers would be an even better analogy. Some of it might be the real truth; but the fact that that is the case, adds to the entertainment factor for me. It doesn't cause me to want to engage in vitriolic attacks of the people who produce it, or label them as frauds, if I find out that something from a PC interview isn't true.

I truthfully don't particularly care whether every PC interview I've ever seen has been complete and outright fiction, because a lot of it, in my own mind, has been good fiction; it's enjoyable, and makes me think. That is all I ask for it, and considering that I've never paid for any of it either, I feel like I've been given a good deal.

Each of us chooses their entertainment sources and venues. Some like midgets performing in circuses, you like PC, I like Mozart. Are we bonding yet?

Bill and Kerry possibly do need to start issuing a disclaimer to this effect; it might get a few of the trolls off their backs.

Appears to me that you are engaging in the very same hypocrisy that you accuse those who criticize Wilcock, Cassidy aka Project Camelot Team - namecalling. I would advise this does not advance your cause.

The trouble with Ms. Cassidy is that she is, er, troubled as is evident, imho, in this transcript from a Skype text/conversation with Dave Corso.

Kerry Cassidy Swears Like A Drunken Sailor's Hooker

I don't find her entertaining here, perhaps you do. Perhaps not.

Here are several other opinions on Ms. Cassidy and her unsightly behaviours.

Five More Rake Kerry Cassidy Over The Coals

EDIT: The Five do not review only Ms. Cassidy so to be fair....

Originally posted by Seconal
The trouble with Ms. Cassidy is that she is, er, troubled as is evident, imho, in this transcript from a Skype text/conversation with Dave Corso.

Kerry Cassidy Swears Like A Drunken Sailor's Hooker

I don't find her entertaining here, perhaps you do. Perhaps not.

I mentioned that I am aware that Kerry is mentally ill, although thank you for the links.

reply to post by petrus4


I gave this thread 72 hours so that I wouldn't interfere with the massive positive response you (didn't) get so....

...how much did you donate to Wilcock since he forgot, er, failed, er didn't arrange to ascend in Y2000?

Originally posted by Seconal
reply to post by petrus4

 

I gave this thread 72 hours so that I wouldn't interfere with the massive positive response you (didn't) get so....

...how much did you donate to Wilcock since he forgot, er, failed, er didn't arrange to ascend in Y2000?

None. I also wasn't actually aware that David had been planning or expecting transcorporeal migration that year. Most of what I heard him say about his proposed film, Convergence, implied that it was going to focus on this year, even back then.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Seconal
reply to post by petrus4

 

I gave this thread 72 hours so that I wouldn't interfere with the massive positive response you (didn't) get so....

...how much did you donate to Wilcock since he forgot, er, failed, er didn't arrange to ascend in Y2000?

None. I also wasn't actually aware that David had been planning or expecting transcorporeal migration that year. Most of what I heard him say about his proposed film, Convergence, implied that it was going to focus on this year, even back then.

He had to close his website ascension2000.com - because of numerous complaints of fraud.

Ascension 2000 Website Forced Offline

Good summary, happy reading.

Wilcock Fraud Timeline

David Wilcock's History Exposed - Messiah or Madman?
Anyone who's followed wilcock for long knows all about his "ascension 2000" fail and how none of the Y2K meltdown occured that Wilcock predicted. That shut him up for a while because just before that he had moved to Virginia Beach trying his claim to fame by riding the coat-tails of the Edgar Cayce foundation until they kicked him out.

Then he moved up to Kentucky where Carla Rueckert was channeling Ra and the "Law of One" books, ( [link to www.scribd.com] and decided he could channel Ra, too. Never mind the fact that the original Ra channelings said specifically that RA could NEVER speak through anyone but Carla. Then Carla threw him out and I thought we'd seen the last of him, but he just keeps popping up like a bad hair day.

So he wrote a couple of books, but no publisher would touch them, and he finally just put them on his site. Then he hooked up with Wynn Free and convinced him he was Edgar Cayce, because he knew that Wynn could get published. After that book flopped he started doing "dream readings" thru his website. Only problem was, he was so bad at it that everybody was asking for a refund; that's why he now has a strict no-refund policy. So after that nobody would pay him for his terrible work and he had to quit.

Then he hooked up with ET researcher and author Scott Mandelker; toured with him a bit; did some shows with Art Bell and Wilcock thought he'd made the big time. Trouble is that Scott got wise to Wilcock and kicked him to the curb...

And so it goes... everyone he's ever worked with has thrown him out, but he keeps trying to con new people, and unfortunately people who are searching are too easily conned, and DW has discovered and exploited this.

Oooooh, truth is painful, yes?

Wilcock Rips Off Joe Jackson's "Stepping Out"