deepfsh wrote:Daniel, since you know David very well, could you please explain what your issue(s) is/are with him or his "crew"? Which ideas do you (or Bruce) disagree on?
From what I see, David is going down the path he always wanted to walk. I have no issues with that. My path, however, has forked off in a different direction. (bruce can answer on his own, as he was the one they were talking with.)
deepfsh wrote:You also said in one post that he's become a different man since he got involved in the "planetary financial battle".
Yes; he has a distinctly different "feel" nowadays than the person I bet back in 2004.
deepfsh wrote:Is he (deliberately?) not reporting (enough) on some things that you talked about years ago, e.g. the LMs (I haven't heard him mention this - he only speaks about the other worldly people),
He knows all about the LMs, as you can see from this post in 2007: http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start ... s-part-iii
. I did offer to give him enough info on the LMs to fill 5 books (still have the email), but got no response.
deepfsh wrote:do you think there are any flaws in his first book, etc.? Would you like to point out something that he mentioned in his (latest) blogs (if you read them)? Is there anything you would like to add about him, his teachings or his research?
His first book was an e-Book, and yes, I read his blogs, and I have some problems with his numerical calculations of the "Wilcock Constant" in that first ebook. I like David; always have. He's a decent guy, tries hard, but as I've mentioned here and on the DC forum, doesn't always get it right because he is a journalist, not a researcher. That's why he can crank out thousands of pages of books and blogs (unlike me, where I can crank out 18 pages in 6 months!)
deepfsh wrote:I was very surprised when you wrote that the questioner of TLO was very familiar with Larson's theory (or was even his friend or head of Larson's organisation), if I remember it correctly. You also said that is the reason why the TLO message is biased in the first place (I hope I got it right), not to mention the additional influence of that negative entity. As a result of all those influences, which part of the message is biased by the questioner's foreknowledge of RS, which part by the medium's psyche, and which part by that negative intruder? Is this a good formula to start a religion or an appealing spiritual movement? I believe it can be. In relation to this, I will never forget Jordan Maxwell's simple words:"Talk to [YOUR] spirit - talk audibly. Ask him to guide you and to protect you, your family, and your loved ones. Ask him to guide you to meet the people you are supposed to meet."
I don't have any answers for that, as I was busy altering time and space at Montauk when those channeling sessions were going on. But Don and Carla were on the Board of Directors for ISUS when it was created, and they were both avid readers, and Larson's stuff has been around since 1959. Is it Ra, or is it Memorex? I don't know. But it is a bit of a coincidence.