David Thompson - Personal Message

"It is a good opportunity - for those with an interest - to ask him the questions that have been raised in the past - and I agree; as long as it's done in a genuine spirit (no pun intended) of interest and not to relight the embers of earlier conflicts."

It would be a good opportunity if the new member were to return....

mac wrote:"It is a good opportunity - for those with an interest - to ask him the questions that have been raised in the past - and I agree; as long as it's done in a genuine spirit (no pun intended) of interest and not to relight the embers of earlier conflicts."

It would be a good opportunity if the new member were to return....

Honestly, you're so pushy sometimes   

obiwan wrote:

mac wrote:"It is a good opportunity - for those with an interest - to ask him the questions that have been raised in the past - and I agree; as long as it's done in a genuine spirit (no pun intended) of interest and not to relight the embers of earlier conflicts."

It would be a good opportunity if the new member were to return....

Honestly, you're so pushy sometimes   

Yep I'm a little bugger!   

  

Well it's a week since the original posting and we're still waiting for you-know-who to return and re-engage with members and their questions.  I'm trying hard not to be cynical but it's kinda what I was expecting....  

Mac, I have more than serious doubt this posting of Thompson was genuine. Thompson usually is far from any interest discussing with people, especially sceptics and his reaction on earlier questions mostly ended with sentences like "I am not on this planet to answer your questions". A good example of that can be still found on Roy Stenman's Paranormal Review.

The title that can be googled... "David Thompson replies — then refuses to give answers"

Quote...

“Dear Mr Stemman. You are quiet correct, I have chosen not to answer your questions, why should I? I am only answerable to the spirit world, not you or any other person. I choose not to engage with you any longer to promote your website or your forthcoming ventures. Please feel free along with your few cohorts to slap each other on the back and believe that you have made a contribution to a subject you only have limited knowledge about. Along with your cohorts please hear this: I AM NOT IN THIS LIFE TO LIVE UP TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS OR TO MEET YOUR NEEDS. Best Regards – David Thompson”

On the other hand side i cannot believe anyone is so stupid to fake comments with DT name. Does anyone see a reason why someone should fake that?

I suspect if it wasn't David Thompson, we'd know about it by now   

I can't think why anyone would impersonate him (no disrespect intended). I can't think of any motive.

Wes wrote:I suspect if it wasn't David Thompson, we'd know about it by now   

Yes but would DT know; would he even care if he did know?   

  

  

last few days....

  

Not much point Mac, Waller has spoken his truth, except we have no idea who he is probably some drive by Troller from a comment he once made. Indeed it was only Waller saying he would not accept without proof and going on ad nauseum in the same vein that let this issue come under question. Now we know Waller was an identity, apparently well crafted and unveiled to the public in February 2014, it is a question about the identity of David raised by an individual whose existence is in question.

Suffice to say that Leroy, Lis and I are sure its DT, many reasons for that, but we are not going to share those especially as I have no idea what Waller would do with them if we said anything. Remember all three of us have spent some days with David so quite possibly we know more of him than others here.

I bet anything gets passed back on PM4U where Waller is happily posting, just as shen1987 said on the Scott Milligan thread
( https://www.spiritualismlink.com/t2062p75-scott-milligan )

Indeed nice post by Waller on PM4U about some people who are familiar to us here,
Waller Joel replied to Paul Faircloth's discussion First physical seance with Gary Mannion
"I'm having a discussion with two Modern Spiritualists with the same last names that everyone knows from their website - wink - where they are maintaining it is "rubbish" to be concerned with what I term "ethereal physics".…"

suitably ingratiating to the people there.

In honesty I doubt if we are very noticeable to members of PM4U, although, once upon a time, to be a member posting here would have been enough to ban you from any séance entry or even access to PM4U. I wonder where Waller may next be banned, from séances, from PM4U or from other places?

Good two points mac. Why David came on here is very hard to understand. I never thought it was to answer questions, especially as the thorny Cadwell/Caldwell one is there now. We can pontificate all we like but unless a dialog starts then it is only a speculative process.

On the second one, you are correct as well, people remember only to vividly what occurred last time, for example, with the misappropriation of your name on other forums. I think just about everyone who posts regularly had their identity taken over with blame and cross charges racing across and between Spiritual and sceptical forums. I think everyone from you, to George Cranley, to Jon Donnis and onwards, including me, were stated to have been conclusively proved to be MU, (adding in all the people that Shen mentions in his post on the Scott Milligan thread). Whoever Shen1987 is he was helpful then so I take note now. For the life of me I cannot understand the mental processes behind the actions the person who was MU, and may well be Waller, took. Probably an expression of Ethereal Physics

Moderators, who are in different time zones to us, are watching, mainly off line and everyone knows what to do, if needed. I know David has been on now, so he will be watching for anything else too.

Hi Everyone,

I can assure you I am definitely who I say I am, yes Waller I have received your message and to prove it is me to satisfy your curiosity I will confirm it when you attend the séance in Sarasota.

I noticed the negative comment by Mickyb which is just the type of comment that makes someone not want to participate in forums.

In regards to the question of William, I will explain what I know and of course you must draw your own conclusions from my explanation.

I first encountered William many years ago during a meditation, he politely introduced himself to me and expressed a desire to work with me, of course not knowing him I said that I would like to get to know him and build a relationship with him.
Back then he only gave his name as William and I was satisfied with that, as time passed and my Trance/Physical mediumship started to manifest, I began asking for more details of him, eventually after my continued asking, he gave me the name William Charles Cadwell, I then started to question him about other details of his existence and although he was reluctant to give any information, he told me that he was born in Scotland and lived most of his life in England and passed over in 1897.
He has said to me many times his identity is really of no value to what he is trying to achieve and that is to bring proof of the existence of life after death.
He did tell me he was a man of science and medicine but never elaborated more than that.
He also said at one point that he still had descendants living and he wished to respect their privacy and had changed some of the information and had done so to protect their identity, which I can respect.

In relation to the cut and paste on my website of the census, I personally felt that was him, he has never agreed or denied that fact. The reason that I omitted some information as Liz accurately observed in a previous posting was merely for ease of posting on my website and for no other reason of any sorts.

I had at one time, what I would call a true to like image of how I see him, unfortunately this picture was sadly lost, since then I have been hoping for the nearest likeness of that picture, and to date the nearest anyone has come to is the one I now have on my website.

Over the many years William has given me adequate personal proof of his sincere endeavours to help people, does it really matter who he is? personally I don't think so, I will as well as many other know him as a kind person from the world of spirit who wishes to help.

Do I actually think he is William Charles Cadwell who passed in 1897? well to be honest, I don't care and wish to respect his privacy and just see him as my close friend William.

In regards to Roy Steman`s article, I personally feel he had his own agenda and that was to be controversial, knowing that it would draw interest in his website, and also he didn't have the decency to accurately put forward my opinions of what he had wrote.
Personally, I will not and do not rise to negative and obviously one-sided debate, because that serves no purpose other than to diminish and belittle the course of proving the existence of the afterlife.  

You must all draw you own thoughts from what I have wrote, and decide for yourself if in the great scheme of things does it really matter, after all many spirit guides in the past have only given scant information as to their true identity. NOT saying William is by any means of the same ilk as Silver Birch but if I am right, he stated that he only gave that name to satisfy his mediums curiosity so it wasn't an impediment in his communications.

Yes, it is true we do record every séance (not all home circle ones though) and I do not listen to any of the recordings as I was advised by William that the least I interfere and allow my mind to hear the information the easier it would be for me to continue to develop the state of trance.

As you can see there is nothing underhanded or hidden from anyone, just me sharing here and on my website what I know and feel is the best interpretation of what I know.

It is also fair to say at this point anything I may share are my opinions and not those of the circle members or William.

Thanks

David Thompson

Thank you for clearing that up David and for coming back on and sharing this with us.

Jim

Hi David,

Thanks for your post and your comments about William. While I may have concerns about the information that William has given and some of what you have written, I do accept that there is an entity that you appear to know as William.

I remember seeing him (clairvoyantly, which of course many would dispute was a real perception, but I am sure it was) when you were at our centre, (just as I had a genuine communication for you from MK at that time) and I must admit, though I really respect the artistic ability of the person who has provided the current image on your website I do not see in that image much likeness to what I perceived back then.

Regardless of that, I do welcome you back and hope you will take more opportunities to express your viewpoint on this forum.

Lis

A very humble response by David. Thank you for the clarification.

@COSC2014-  not that it matters what my opinion is, but fwiw I think your response is a  perfectly reasonable answer to the question as far as I can see with my limited knowledge of the history of the discussion.

If I assume that your mediumship is genuine (which I am not qualified to form a definitive view on, never having witnessed it and not knowing the people who have and who have reported on it) you're certainly not accountable for your guide's/control's opinions or advice as far as I can see.