Did Walter Veith set 2027 date for Jesus coming?

I am just so annoyed at the writing at Adventist Today. It seems to have just degenerated into a bunch of nonsequiturs. Take for instance this from just today. Our Conspiracists, and Why We Love Them

Loren Seibold writes:

But Veith and his friend found a much larger discrepancy, one that allowed them to move the date up to 2027—still in the future, which means they can fundraise on it for a good seven more years.Again, I confess my limited ability to understand either their mathematics or their paranoid meanderings. Yet you would be astonished by the number of people who defended this presentation to me, who told me that Veith hadn’t given a date for Jesus’ return because he said he hadn’t given a date for Jesus’ return, even as they were telling me the date he’d given for Jesus’ return. That’s an impressive feat of mental engineering, and I thank Walt for showing how it’s done. 

Now I am no fan of Walter Veith but this is just pathetic. Notice first there is no indication of where we find Veith's supposed time setting. I will give you the source below. Seibold in this article does not argue with anything that Veith has said. His entire argument is with some anonymous person who tells Seibold that Veith did not in fact set any date. This is not how intelligent people discuss things. You deal with what someone actually said not what some unidentified person told you about someone else. 

If you really want to know how people get into conspiracy theories it is because they believe something despite the evidence. They want to believe it so they believe it and they arrange information to try to support their conclusion. All the mental engineering done in the above quote was performed by Seibold. The reader has no way of knowing what the anonymous person said, there is no quote to what the anonymous person said concerning date setting. The only attribution was that the anonymous person said there was no date setting! This is Adventist Today in summary, logic has been thrown out the window! 

The Seventh-day Adventist' Church Northern Conference of South Africa put out a  Memorandum of understanding on Walter Veith's statement.

They state:

PERCEIVED SETTING OF DATES: While we acknowledge that prof. Walter Veith holds that he did not set a date, by mentioning the year 2027 or earlier/later, as a possible date on different occasions, he complicates his position. (For more detail see footnote); i 

After careful study of the writings of Ellen G. White, the Bible, and the material presented by prof. Veith, the Theological Review Committee (TRC) of the Northern Conference has come to the conclusion that the main problem in the presentation is the issue of perceived date setting for the second coming of Christ. 

Their footnote states:

i Statements like the following do not help the argument that he has not set a date “If 2027 is the end of the six-thousand-year period of warring against God, then this would exclude the time of preparation required after the wicked are raised. Is it possible that time could be cut off from the six thousand years before 2027? If so, then Christ must come sometime before 2027 to allow this?” (1 Hour, 41 minutes and 18 seconds into the Lecture). Acknowledgment is however also given to prof Veith’s statement: “The Lord can add to that time, the Lord delays His coming, the Lord can take away from that time. I don’t know. I’m not making the time. I’m saying that the time is short” (1:53:21-1:53:51). 

 Prof Veith bases his statements on the following quotes “But the day and the hour of His coming Christ has not revealed. He stated plainly to His disciples that He Himself could not make known the day or the hour of His second appearing. Had He been at liberty to reveal this, why need He have exhorted them to maintain an attitude of constant expectancy? There are those who claim to know the very day and hour of our Lord’s appearing. Very earnest are they in mapping out the future. But the Lord has warned them off the ground they occupy. The exact time of the second coming of the Son of man is God’s mystery.” (DA 632.4) and “On Jordan’s banks the voice from heaven, attended by the manifestation from the excellent glory, proclaimed Christ to be the Son of the Eternal. Satan was to personally encounter the Head of the kingdom which he came to overthrow. If he failed he knew that he was lost. Therefore the power of his temptations was in accordance with the greatness of the object which he would lose or gain. For four thousand years, ever since the declaration was made to Adam that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head, he had been planning his manner of attack” (CON 78.2)

Here is the video link, start a little before the 1-hour 41-minute mark, if you watch from there until the end you see he clearly multiple times says he is not setting a date and repeats multiple times that he does not know. His whole premise is flawed on numerous levels but that is not my concern here. Attempting to interpret Ellen White in a timeline like people try to interpret the Bible books of Daniel and Revelation as a timeline will not work any better than all the other failed timelines.

My question is how it can even be "perceived" he either said it or he did not, if someone says they don't know and they say they are not setting a date what is the perception based upon. Apparently, it is based upon third party opinions of the matter...hearsay. no one in this attempt at defamation is looking particularly good. But I would say that the Seventh-day Adventist' Church Northern Conference of South Africa is appearing way better than Adventist Today.

We are at a time when logic certainly has failed for many people.