David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

...one must also allow that Ra couldn't know that the curvature of time and space would change but that they do know that 2012 is a definitive date?

That is probably the single best point you have made in this discussion.

It is a strong argument, yet we must also guard against drawing conclusions from this. It may sound plausible. But at the same time, when I board a train I may not know anything about the route it will take. I may not know it's average speed or the variations in it. Yet I know exactly when I will arrive. And all that without an education as train driver!

Without understanding the physics it is impossible to judge whether or not the statements made by Wilcock are correct. As evidence that he is either fraudulent or severely misguided this apparent dichotomy is simply not reliable enough. In formal reasoning I believe this is called a non sequitur. From the apparent dichotomy it does not follow that Wilcock is incorrect.

Yet at the same time nothing in his channeling suggests formally that he IS correct. I said before I have no big opinion of channeling in general. It is the material I judge, not the process. I have not studied the material channeled by Wilcock Ra or other source. And what I've read of it sounded pretty much like more of the same.

Channeled remarks are filtered through the individual unless as you all know very special care is taken. "You shall ascend" might be the proper way to say something but even then it can mean anything.

We should judge the verifiable conclusions drawn. Not the process, not the personal style, and not our gut feeling on the matter. We should also bear in mind that someones personal expressions may be a misrepresentation of something that none the less still is truth. None of us are enlightened enough to actually know this truth. All of us carry flawed representations. Simple differences are not enough to consider someone right or wrong. They are indications of a complex reality. And through all these observations might we come to a conclusion.

@Solo Maters: Wilcock has a very strong ego and his style is disliked by many. Also anything anyone ever says should be followed in the mind of the listener by "That is his opinion at this point in space time and under the influence of this mood" And it should be understood with everyone that the words are rationalisations of perceptions. For this reason I am not interested in personal opinions. Wilcock can think he's the queen of england, and at some level he'd actually be correct. I also tend not to judge these things or take them serious. I can tell you stories about the things people believe that will make you frown. Yet they are so real that people have actually changed their lives over them, been wounded by them, or fallen in love with them.

You claim wilcock has been 100% wrong in some regards. Could you give a clear example of something factual he claims that later turned out to be verifiably wrong? Without going as far as to state that we can never be mistaken for any kind of learning means we must make mistakes. And Davids insights are clearly evolving over time.