David Icke

Subject: David Icke
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:24 PM

How do mudcatters view him.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Dave Earl
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:25 PM

As a nutcase.

Next question?

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:28 PM

Never heard of him. What sort of music does he play?

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:36 PM

Good Grief! He's not on Mudcat is he?

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:39 PM

Total BS: David Icke thread

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:46 PM

Yeah, kat. I thought the name sounded familiar, but I didn't know why. You Tubing now. The guy seems like he's alternately brilliant and insane.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 02:05 PM

well, its very easy to dismiss him as a nutter.
but if I had been eligible to vote,in the recent Haltem price and howden by election,he would have got my vote.
I find him preferable,to the English Democrats,the Green Party,and the Conservatives.
I think some of his statements are spot on.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 02:13 PM

He is spot on, bout a number of things. Also just plain bizarre, inflammatory and a wiz at marketing.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 03:37 PM

There was another thread on the topic much more recently, entitled (I think) "David Icke: was he right?". Some good discussion there, too; until it got hijacked by one of the tolerated trolls on here.

An intelligent and astute analyst of world events and current affairs, if nothing else. As for the more metaphysical claims; well, really, who knows? Better an open mind than a closed one, though.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 07:38 PM

"until it got hijacked by one of the tolerated trolls on here."

Speak for yourself, laughing boy. Created any new identities today?


"As for the more metaphysical claims; well, really, who knows? Better an open mind than a closed one, though."

Yes - definitely better to keep an open mind to the claims of a semitic world hierarchy of shape-shifting lizards and a royal family who drink blood. Unless, of course, you possess even a modicum of sanity.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 10:17 PM

Icke doesn't use the lizards as a metaphor for Jews. That's a rather pernicious lie that some people are spreading about him. Whether or not he is a crackpot and whether or not what he has to say is full of crap, one thing he is not is an anti-Semite.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 10:30 PM

As per Icke's lizard theory, I think other Canadians will agree that he is absolutely agree about Brian Mulrooney.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:17 AM

A great deal of what David Icke says is fascinating, tremendously interesting, and right on the mark. Other things he says are very unusual, to say the least. To simply dismiss him as a "nutter" would be foolish. To automatically believe everything he says would also be foolish. There is much useful ground between those 2 extremes of foolish attitude.

Much of what he does have to say is definitely worth listening to, as you will discover if you bother listening to him with genuine attention.

If, however, you are one of those individuals who would rather just form a snap judgement of someone, based on anything he says that you don't buy, and throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes, then you can call blithely David Icke a "nutter" and be done with it. You won't need to rattle your own comfort zone at all or ever think outside your usual parameters. This would indicate a great deal more about you, though, than it would about David Icke.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:26 AM

Right about Mulrooney

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:28 AM

There is such a thing as credibility LH. He lost me at "Lizard People". (except for Mulrooney)

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:38 AM

I was wondering if Little Hawk saw the video, and was curious as to his take on it. Also, what if..I mean what if, he is right? or at least not to far off the mark?...then again, a broken clock is right, at least two times a day!! ...Watched some of it..will complete it later, when I get up from the hole in the ground studio...(basement)....bye, back to the grind....

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:23 AM

Mrs Stigweard and I were in the car a year or tow ago waiting to pull out of a junction in Newport on the Isle of Wight where Icke lives. There was a pub on the corner with loud music issuing forth (it was the middle of the afternoon in the week).

Standing opposite us was a bedraggled and unkempt looking chap carrying a Tesco's bag, glaring hard at the pub. I took us a few seconds to recognise the Son of God himself standing there, looking as if he'd just slept under a hedge (mind you, after several consecutive days of traversing big shingle banks and mudslides in pursuit if the mighty saurian we probably looked as if we'd slept under a hedge too).

He scrubs up well for the telly.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:32 AM

Re anti-semitism: Jon Ronson's documentary investigation is definitely worth watching.

LittleHawk, there are enough sane people around who espouse views similar to Icke's more reasoned observations. If you need a leader, why not pick one of them?

The issue is definitely one of credibility. Personally, I don't see how you can espouse the position of someone whose grasp on reality is clearly tenuous at best. Similarly, even if i thought Scientology had some good points, its underlying theism which focuses on aliens from the planet Zog (or wherever) would seriously damage my ability to take it seriously as a belief system. I don't think this makes me narrow-minded. A bit cynical perhaps, but in this world you've gotta be.

I think I'd prefer to worship at the church of Marcus Brigstocke than of the giant lizards or the spacemen.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:38 AM

Something here might answer your question!

Sal

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:39 AM

I suppose it's what one interprets as a lizard.

Sal

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:46 AM

I don't need a leader, Ruth. ;-) I subscribe to Dylan's suggestion: "don't follow leaders"

I merely find much of what David Icke says to be very interesting, that's all. That doesn't mean I "espouse" everything he says.

I don't buy the "lizard" thing in any literal sense, and I think he may be completely wrong about that. On the other hand, it may be an analogy for a number of things, such as: a person's state of consciousness, the areas of the human brain that one's consciousness is primarily working through, etc. The reptilian levels of primitive consciousness are still found embodied in the lower brainstem...as are the other primitive levels of consciousness that are way back there in our lengthy evolutionary inheritance. If you think primarily through those lower centres in the brain, then you would think like a reptile: strong territoriality instinct, lack of emotional empathy, coldness, violence as a solution, ruthless competition with others, predatory nature, etc...

There are individuals who think primarily within those primitive patterns, and they are potentially quite dangerous people.

If you had studied some stuff about the "third eye" or the pituitary, and how people can see differently through activating the third eye (a concept well known in esoteric spiritual disciplines that have been undertaken and known in the East for thousands of years by a small number of adepts) then it might shed further light on what Icke is talking about in that regard. Some natural and synthetic drugs will temporarily unlock that third eye capability, by the way, but it's risky to fool around with such stuff. It can cause mental and emotional damage if not handled right. In other words...he is not talking about beings that physically transform, in my opinion...he is talking about a shift in consciousness. (most probably)

If you don't know about any of that and aren't inclined to bother, then you won't even consider it, right?

As for the "son of God" bit....stigweard...what most people seem to be failing to grasp is that David Icke was not setting himself apart in any way when he said that, because he sees ALL of us as the sons and daughters of God in a completely equal sense.

And so do I. And so did Jesus. But his (Jesus') followers chose to make him "special" and set him apart as the one and only exclusive Son of God. That was their error, and it is the error that followers usually make.

So don't be a follower. BE that son of God yourself and recognize that everyone else is too. Then you will truly value and respect other people. That is what has been called "enlightenment" in the greater spiritual traditions of the East. That is what Icke was saying.

It was other people who chose to interpret it as a statement of individually divine exclusivity on his part...perhaps because they are themselves accustomed to thinking only in exclusive terms.

Either we are all the Sons of God...or no one is. That's my position on it. That's also Icke's position, according to what I've heard him say.

I've watched a good many of his videos, and read some of the books. Interesting. I don't "follow" him or anyone else either, but I like a lot of what he says.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Bee
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:47 AM

Personally, I prefer my political philosophy and analysis to come from people who haven't imagined a bizarre alternate reality in order to correlate their theories.

Once you decide humans you don't trust/disagree with/feel threatened or persecuted by are in fact not human, but are demons/lizards/aliens, then you don't have to treat them as humans anymore. Dehumanizing real people, regardless of whether they are powerful or wealthy or evil, is wrong, no matter how appealing. Such beliefs cloud judgement and enable atrocity.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:10 AM

"As for the "son of God" bit....stigweard...what most people seem to be failing to grasp is that David Icke was not setting himself apart in any way when he said that, because he sees ALL of us as the sons and daughters of God in a completely equal sense."

I know - it was just an attempt at light-heartedness. Him turning up on Wogan in his turquoise tracksuit claiming this massive epiphany he'd had and we were all to follow him was a bit of a shock as the week before he'd been presenting Grandstand.

As for following leaders, sod that. I've been bullied on this site for daring to slaughter some of these sacred cows before, and like they say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I am not a son of anyone's God.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:11 AM

I think the idea that Icke speaks of lizards in any kind of metaphorical sense is erroneous. I've watched the videos too, and he means lizards. Quite literally.

If someone believes that they have seen people literally change into lizards in front of them, I would question their sanity.

"Once you decide humans you don't trust/disagree with/feel threatened or persecuted by are in fact not human, but are demons/lizards/aliens, then you don't have to treat them as humans anymore. Dehumanizing real people, regardless of whether they are powerful or wealthy or evil, is wrong, no matter how appealing. Such beliefs cloud judgement and enable atrocity."

I agree.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:17 AM

Remember when he came to Ireland and appeared on the Late Late Show, and predicted that something dire and disastrous would happen in Derry before the summer was out? Gaybo demurred and Icke insisted, "You just wait. You'll see." So we did. And didn't. Zilch.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:09 AM

I've seen the Jon Ronson documentary on David Icke. It does a very good job of showing that the accusations of anti-Semitism against Icke are spurious. Ronson says himself in the documentary, "the more time I spend with David, the more I'm convinced that when he says, 'lizards', he means lizards".

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:21 AM

but do the people around Icke mean lizards?

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:46 AM

What others are saying bears no relevance on whether or not Icke himself is an anti-Semite. Some people with unsavory agendas distort all kinds of innocuous things to serve their agendas. That reflects only on those who are doing the distorting, and not on those whose words and works are being distorted.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:48 AM

And by the way, I've seen no evidence that Icke himeself is associating with anti-Semites.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:15 PM

from Jon Ronson's piece on David Icke, following the pie-throwing incident on the bookshop:

"And, as the anti-racists slipped quietly away, a few members of David's entourage grinned behind their hands. Later, over dinner, I heard one of them murmur, "Well, the fat Jews fucked up."

David didn't hear this comment. When they saw that I had, they blushed and fell silent and said nothing like it again."

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:32 PM

I think the more telling thing would be how Icke would have responded had he heard the comment.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:39 PM

Carol, I agree that Icke's own anti-semitism is unproven. But the fact that he built his philosophy on the Protocol of Zion means that there is something dubious going on there. If nothing else it has opened the door to him being surrounded by people of highly questionable political leanings. And he is helping those people to gain power and legitimacy, whether he acknoweledges it or not.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:42 PM

The point I was addressing in my original post in this thread was the assertion that the lizards he talks about are Semitic. They are not Semitic. I'll spend some more time looking into the charge that he built his philosophy on the Protocal of Zion before I comment on that.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:30 PM

He makes some sense. He connects the dots. It's too easy to attack him personally without addressing the issues he raises. But it's all about calling people names isn't it?

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Gervase
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:58 PM

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:21 PM

Stigweard - "I am not a son of anyone's God."

You may be misunderstanding what I mean by the term "God" then, stigweard. Are you a son of life itself? I think you are. I think we all are. Get it? We're all equal in that sense, and life itself IS sacred, and it is the common origin of all of us.

God (Allah, Brahman, Tao, Wakan Tanka, etc), in my opinion, are all various cultural metaphors for that which is the origin of all of us: life itself. Existence itself. The Universe itself. You don't have to belong to any organized religion to get that.

Icke is no sacred cow, he's just a man who says some stuff that is worth listening to...and he, as a matter of fact, attacks much more popular, powerful, and common sacred cows of every variety all the time, so you ought to really like him, I think.

***********

"A broken clock only tells the right time twice a day." Uh-huh, but you might notice that David Icke is accurate considerably more often than twice a day... ;-)

************

"you don't have to treat them as humans anymore"

Icke strongly recommends treating everyone as you yourself would wish to be treated...with kindness, non-violence, and compassion. Apply the Golden Rule. He does not recommend bowing down and letting others dominate you or push you around, however, neither does he recommend doing any harm to those who attempt to do that in society. He just recommends firmly saying "no" when they do attempt it.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Bee
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:56 PM

"Icke strongly recommends treating everyone as you yourself would wish to be treated...with kindness, non-violence, and compassion. Apply the Golden Rule. He does not recommend bowing down and letting others dominate you or push you around, however, neither does he recommend doing any harm to those who attempt to do that in society. He just recommends firmly saying "no" when they do attempt it. " - LH

Little Hawk. If you are face to face with a being that outwardly appears to be human, but whom you truly believe is really an evil alien lizard usurper, then it is almost a certainty that you will not be able to respond to them in the same manner as you would a being you accept to be a real human. You might certainly be able to act as if you thought they were human, but this would mean you are trying to deceive the being, therefore not practicing Golden Rulish behaviour toward them. And if you are mistaken, and it is a real human you face, then you are doing them a grievous wrong by treating them deceitfully while believing them to be a lizard.

Of course, you could always tell the person to their face that they are in fact a scaly shape-shifting lizard, and attempt a conversation on that basis, but I suspect you would then have burnt your bridges regardless of the humanity or lizardliness of the individual.

I can't believe I just typed that up.

Where's Rowdy Roddy when one needs him?

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:26 AM

I've watched and listened to several hours of Icke talking, some today, and a lot more a few months ago. I don't recall him saying anything at all about the Protocols of Zion. Perhaps someone else has heard or read something I haven't and can provide a link.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:50 AM

Have another look at the Ronson doc, Carol.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:27 AM

"We're all equal in that sense, and life itself IS sacred, and it is the common origin of all of us."

Agreed - I live my life by this rationale, but you talk of Jesus etc made it seem you were talking about the Hebrew/Muslim/Christian God - which is fine, but not my personal belief system.

As for Icke, my opinion is he's one of these people that can tap into the general unease felt at any time in history. It's a clever trick and let's not forget the man is making a living from propounding his theories in books, the internet and stage shows etc - he has a vested interest in keeping his profile high and his theories on a rolling boil.

In some ways, he has a point as it's not difficult to see that since the Industrial Revolution we've been on a slow downward slope as a race and the ability to disseminate information quickly and to a worldwide audience has shifted the emphasis from mainstream viewpoints being considered the norm (which they still are in the majority of the population) to fundamentalist and extremist opinions gaining credence as their proponents exploit this new-found freedom to reach wider audience, and this has a powerful effect on the disillusioned and fearful.

Unfortunately, I don't think we need lizard men or whatever to explain our current problems. Apply Occam's Razor to the question and see what the simplest answer is:

Is the earth being taken over by greedy, self-interested (mainly white but that's changing slowly) people who only care about their businesses and making us consumers, who wish to ensure unregulated capitalism remains the main economic system despite the harm it causes to the planet and our freedoms.

or

Have extraterrestrial Lizards travelled from their home planet taken over the human race for 12,000 years and are using the same systems of er, unregulated capitalism to control us and make us all subservient to their needs for their own evil ends (has Icke said what their ultimate aim is?).

I'd prefer the lizards - it might imply there was some hope for our children. As it is, I suspect it's just plain old rotten people.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:14 AM

Agreed, stigweard..."the earth (is) being taken over by greedy, self-interested (mainly white but that's changing slowly) people who only care about their businesses and making us consumers, who wish to ensure unregulated capitalism remains the main economic system despite the harm it causes to the planet and our freedoms."

That's it in a nutshell.

I really have no opinion one way or the other about Icke's ideas about the lizard thing, but I'm quite interested in much that he has to say regardless.

When I spoke of Jesus, I was speaking of him as a man, a spiritual philosopher, who just happened to be born into a Hebrew culture at the time. I was not speaking of Jehovah or "God". I might just as well have spoken of Lao-Tse, Buddha, Zoroaster, Krishna, or any number of other such individuals out of the distant past whose contribution to their society at the time they lived was so notable that it resulted in the formation of a major religion/philosophy. It's the men themselves and their philosophical bent that I'm interested in...not the specific cultural notions about a deity (or not). It is the moral and ethical notions about life that underly a religion/philosophy that really interest me...not its ideas about a deity or its rules and regulations (if it has any...Taoism, for instance, doesn't have rules and regulations).

You may be quite right when you say that, "As for Icke, my opinion is he's one of these people that can tap into the general unease felt at any time in history. It's a clever trick and let's not forget the man is making a living from propounding his theories in books, the internet and stage shows etc - he has a vested interest in keeping his profile high and his theories on a rolling boil."

Could be. The personal price he had to pay in ridicule and ostracism in his own society, though, makes me think he is probably 100% sincere in what he's doing. If not, he's quite an actor...and he'd have to also be a person with a pathological desire for suffering humiliation and general scorn. He's English! ;-) Just think of what the man's gone through on account of what he's been saying, for heaven's sake. ;-) I think I would rather be dead than go what he had to go through. He had a flourishing, lucrative career already established as a sportcaster and he was doing very well at that. He loves soccer and sports generally, and could make a good living in that way. Why would he then put himself out on the kind of limb he did...if he didn't believe that stuff he's saying? I think that ONLY an absolutely impassioned belief in what he's saying could have got him to have the nerve to say it and pay the price. No one wants to be treated the way David Icke was treated in the early days of his present vocation...and is still treated, as a matter of fact by many people.

Therefore, I'm betting that he has done it out of genuine belief.

Now, whether his beliefs are right or not...that I can't say. I would have to BE him to know. You get that? No one can say whether he's right or not...they would have to BE him to know. Other than that, they're just expressing an unconfirmed opinion, based on their own assumptions about life.

Occam's Razor cannot supply a final answer to this sort of thing, it can only remind us of what we think is the most likely answer, based on our own past experience, and the "most likely" answer is sometimes NOT the real answer. Life can hold astonishing surprises now and then. Occam's Razor is like the common knowledge you find everywhere. It's based on our past experiences, and it's quite useful, but it cannot supply the final and indisputable answer to a matter which is as yet unproven.

Now, consider this. The vast majority of people will always support the most conventional viewpoint and they will heap scorn upon any unconventional one...but the vast majority of people are still sometimes wrong. In fact, they're often wrong. ;-) History will bear me out on that.

You don't know if Icke is right in what he's saying. Neither do I. We don't know if he's all right, half right, 10 % right or whatever. Neither one of us knows if he's sincere or not either. We can only make our best guess about that, right? So we are arguing about guesswork...

I'm guessing he's sincere. You're guessing he isn't. (shrug) And so it goes...

***********

Bee... amusing post! ;-) Well, let's say I met Dick Cheney. I find the man quite disturbing, frankly, regardless of whether or not he's possessed by a lizard consciousness. I would regard him with caution and some trepidation, but I believe I would be able to talk to him with about as much normal courtesy as I show to any other person...so it would probably be okay. I would be interested to see what he had to say.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 10:17 AM

I think it might be worth putting this whole thing in some sort of context for the non-UK residents, to understand some of the feelings expressed about David Icke.

As people of a certain age will remember Icke was a highly respected broadcaster in his day who was an anchor on Grandstand, a BBC institution that was beamed for four or five hours every Saturday afternoon into the homes of Britain. In those days you could see first division football, cricket and just about every other sport played on it so it was viewed by a heck of a lot of people. He was one of those familiar faces who had complete credibility - as a BBC broadcaster and sports journalist (he was a goalie for Coventry City until injury forced his retirement at a young age) he was a familiar as a tea cosy and about as trusted.

So when he appeared on Wogan, the change was profound, and people couldn't believe it. If he'd tattooed himself bright orange and ran around Trafalgar Square shouting "I'm a carrot!" he couldn't have made more of an impact. People talked about it for days afterwards, and Icke became a byword for nutters everywhere. In my opinion, Wogan has always been a devout middle Englander (despiter being Irish) and his cheap jibes and knowing smirk give away the fact he was enjoying humilitaing Icke, and today looks a bit rotten here and there.

But . . . Icke is a bright bloke. He was a senior journalist at the BBC, with a high profile and he knew what he was doing. He knew full well how this might play out, and his cried of "foul!" don't quite wash, and guess that's why I have a questioning attitude towards him. I would contend he hasn't been ostracised at all by his own society, and their is a degree of iconoclastism (is that a word?) that runs through the cultures of these Islands that means public figures are open for ridicule - ever read Private Eye? Long may it remain so (I've taken flak for this on this board before, but I'd rather be an iconoclast than a sheep).

I keep an open mind on this sort of thing - as you say LH I have no way of knowing if Icke is correct, the Loch Ness Monster exists or if Villa will win the Premiership next year (although I might be more likely to see one of Icke's lizards than that happens), but I'm entitled to an opinion, and I think he isn't.

But if I'm proved wrong, we could start a resistance movement : )

"Now, consider this. The vast majority of people will always support the most conventional viewpoint and they will heap scorn upon any unconventional one...but the vast majority of people are still sometimes wrong. In fact, they're often wrong. ;-) History will bear me out on that."

You got to hope so - they elected Tony Blair and look where that lead us (he does look a little reptilian though, don't you think?).

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 10:40 AM

CarolC

I've watched and listened to several hours of Icke talking, some today, and a lot more a few months ago. I don't recall him saying anything at all about the Protocols of Zion. Perhaps someone else has heard or read something I haven't and can provide a link.

Try this http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/Ickequotes.htm

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 10:43 AM

I don't recall him saying anything at all about the Protocols of Zion. (CarolC)

Icke (in his 1995 book): In the very late 1800's, a controversial document came to light called the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". I call them the Illuminati Protocols, and I quote many extracts from them in The Robots' Rebellion. Some say they were a forgery made public only to discredit Jews, and I use the term "Illuminati Protocols" to get away from the Jewish emphasis. If they were a forgery, something that is quite possible, what were they a forgery of, and by whom?...

My use of extracts from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was too much for political purity to take.

David Icke And The Politics Of Madness. Where The New Age Meets The Third Reich

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 11:07 AM

Okie dokie.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 12:35 PM

Blair is a fascinating prospect as a reptilian, stigweard! LOL! I'm saying that strictly in a humorous vein...but then, you never know, do you?

Wolfgang, it looks to me from reading David Icke's books that he is not anti-semitic at all...but he is certainly opposed to the activities of the current political movement known as Zionism. And so are more than a few Jews. I know a professional lady in this town, a Jew, and she is strenuously opposed to Zionism, and she's also a big fan of David Icke. And she's extremely proud of being Jewish and celebrates her Jewish heritage.

So everyone doesn't interpret it all the same way, do they? They interpret it as they want to. It's amazing how people's minds can wrap themselves around any proposition they decide to back, isn't it? For many it is enough simply to hear that someone is presumed to be "anti-semitic". From then on he's damned. It's like calling someone a "witch" back in Salem Massachussetts. Practically everyone believes the accusation from the moment it is uttered, and there's nothing you can do to change their minds. Once a witch, always a witch...the charge of anti-semitism works quite similarly in the present social order, I think.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:13 PM

Little Hawk,

why do you talk to me about the anti-semitic accusation. I have posted nothing at all about it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:27 PM

I think there are some rather politically questionable statements in the link posted by The Snail. Icke would appear not to have a problem with all Jews. Just the powerful ones.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:17 PM

It's impossible for the press not to diss him because what he has to say is so controversial and steps on the toes of so many so-called journalist-pundits. He has connected the dots in a way that is intriguing and whether it's factual or not doesn't seem to be the goal
of this thread. Again, people here attack the messenger and not the message.

I don't know what he intended about lizards but it seems trivial compared to what he
really has to say about what's going on in the world.

I can agree that there are a lot of sinister forces out there that try to gain power by
subduing the freedom of speech and enemy posing. Some of these are notorious partisan think tanks and subterranean political groups creating what could be considered
"shadow governments". My question is how much these groups are really connected in a monolithic way to produce an Orwellian "Big Brother". Does a lot of little sicknesses
add up to a big disease?

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:17 PM

Addendum: I think Little Hawk is correct.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:26 PM

This lot actually exist: Bilderberg.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:27 PM

I don't think it's necessarily correct to say he has a problem with powerful Jews. I think it's more correct to say he has a problem with powerful people - some of whom are Jews.

I agree that his references to the Protocols are problematic because of the kinds of people that sort of thing attracts. Perhaps some good can come out of that if he is able to persuade people like that to see things more the way he does, ie: to simply say "no" if people think anyone is trying to exert undue control, rather than to hate people and to behave violently.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

Glad to see this is still being discussed.

-Laughing Boy-(lol)

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:29 PM

. . . and the less hysterical Wikipedia article: on the Bilderberg Group.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:36 PM

Icke didn't originate the concept of the Illuminati. But he is the first to suggest that they are comprised of 8 foot lizards. So what are these great truths he's exposed?

"He has connected the dots in a way that is intriguing and whether it's factual or not doesn't seem to be the goal
of this thread."

So what IS factual? The lizards? The idea that Oklahoma City and Waco were Israeli/US government conspiracies? The Holocaust denials? All the calamities he's predicted which failed to materialise? The idea that Combat 18 is a front for the Israeli secret service?

It scares me that there are people who take this crap seriously. Then again, 3m Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:38 PM

Pardon me, Wolfgang. I just got off on thinking about that particular topic, but I have no particular reason to link it to you.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 03:22 PM

"It scares me that there are people who take this crap seriously."

Why does it scare you, Ruth? I don't know of a single human life that's been lost because of anything David Icke ever said...but hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and millions ruined by the conventionally accepted mainstream crap, the false propaganda, that was disseminated by George Bush and Tony Blair on mass media about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs. And that crap was taken seriously by, oh, maybe a hundred million or more people...because they believe what Big Brother tells them!

That is the crap that should really scare you. David Icke is not scary at all. He's an iconoclast, an outrageously outspoken noncomformist, and he does not have the weight of mass media and national armies and military intelligence agencies behind him, and he never will. He represents no real threat to your cozy existence at all. It's the people at the top of this society, the people in governmental and financial institutions, the rulers, who present a real threat to your cozy existence...and to mine...and to that of Third World citizens. They are powerful. They have armies and police and atomic weapons. David Icke is just one man with a very unusual opinion.

"Then again, 3m Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens."

Really? Is that a real statistic? ;-) Hell, I've met maybe 150 or more people by now who think they may have seen an alien vehicle on some occasion, and I have little reason to doubt them, but I haven't met one who claimed to have been adbducted by the aliens. It can't be as common as all that.

But supposing someone had been abducted by aliens? Well, he or she could never expect to get a fair hearing from you on that, right, Ruth? Because you already KNOW that nothing like that has ever happened or could ever happen to anyone on Planet Earth.

How exactly would you know that, Ruth? On what basis?

If it hasn't happened to you yet, does that mean it can't happen to anyone?

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 03:39 PM

I haven't met a vampire. I haven't seen a unicorn. I haven't seen fairies. I think it is very unlikely that these creatures exist, and no, i don't believe that America has suddenly become the target for mass alien abduction.

It's not about whether it's happened to me or not. It's about the balance of probability. I am capable of what I consider reasoned judgement and a healthy scepticism - for the record, I never believed in WMD either.

"How exactly would you know that, Ruth? On what basis?" Again, it's about balance of probability. If someone is claiming experiences that seriously transgress the boundaries of reality as we understand it, I think they are probably mentally unstable.

A guy I used to work with was a schizophrenic. He was convinced that he'd been in the cupboard with Patty Hearst, even though she'd been kidnapped before he was even born.

While I can't prove that his story was false, I'm inclined to believe that it was the product of his illness. If that's not giving someone a "fair hearing", sue me.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:06 PM

Little Hawk, you and I have talked about David Icke before. I actually deleted a longer post I was writing because it was too convoluted, but something you just said contradicts an earlier post in this thread. You said,

"Now, whether his beliefs are right or not...that I can't say. I would have to BE him to know. You get that? No one can say whether he's right or not...they would have to BE him to know. Other than that, they're just expressing an unconfirmed opinion, based on their own assumptions about life."

So David Icke's beliefs are not allowed to be scorned, scoffed at, debated or what have you, but George Bush and Tony Blair's beliefs are open to hostile ridicule? Replace David Icke with George Bush in what I just quoted, and answer. I would have to be George Bush to know whether I believed for real that Iraq had WMD's. YOU can't say whether he's right or not, because you are expressing an unconfirmed opinion, based on your own assumptions about life.

Now, see? You're probably saying right now, well Robert, everyone knows it was all a propaganda machine, that you would be foolish not to see the evidence that WMD's didn't exist, that it was for oil, etc. Right? You're saying Robert, I can show you proof WMD's didn't exist, Bush was wrong.

So if you can get worked up about someone disputing George Bush and Blair's claims of WMD's, then I think I'm entitled to say that David Icke, although he believes what he writes about, is way off the mark, has a lot of very out there ideas that are kooky, and has a lot of unsubstantiated claims (Ted Heath performing ritual sacrifice on children before shape shifting into a lizard-from an interview on Icke's website). You can't get worked up about Bush, and chide us for failing to understand Icke.

Maybe he just should have stuck with the football!!!

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

"Ted Heath performing ritual sacrifice on children before shape shifting into a lizard..."

Has that ever actually been disproved?

-Laughing Boy- (tongue only half in cheek)

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:47 PM

Well....I did here a rumour that he and Graham Chapman once had a .....little tryst!

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:59 PM

The way I see it, we're all hard-wired to believe in something we cannot see and cannot be empirically proven. That's why people are religious, or dogmatically atheistic, or vote for demagogues, or develop superstitions, or even follow received wisdom on x number of things. Some such forms of belief are more benign than others, of course. But the very fact it's there in us at all points to the truth being out and about, somewhere...and SOMEBODY must know it.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:28 PM

Ruth and IrishEnglish - I am in agreement with a great deal of what you both say. Of course one bases one's suppositions on probabilities. We all do that. And we base our suppositions on direct experience as well, if we have any.

I didn't believe there were any alien vehicles until I actually saw something that appeared most probably to be an alien vehicle. Prior to that I just wasn't interested in the subject. It wasn't that I scorned people who were interested in it, I just wasn't interested, that's all.

Now, let's go back through some of that...

From Ruth: "I haven't met a vampire."

Nor have I. I met someone once who claimed he'd met one, but I don't have any particular opinion based on that. I think there are probably some odd people who think they are vampires from time to time, and who behave accordingly, but I doubt that there are any real vampires in the sense that they are depicted in fiction. However, I can't say for 100% certain, I just doubt it.

"I haven't seen a unicorn."

Nor I. Everyone I've ever known of seems to agree that they're mythical.

"I haven't seen fairies."

Hmmm. Well, I have heard enough personal accounts about that sort of thing that I think there may indeed be some nature spirit beings which have been termed "fairies" by certain people who were in the right level of awareness to catch a brief sight of them...but I can't say for sure. I haven't seen any myself. I would assume that if they do exist at all that they do not exist in the physical spectrum, but in another spectrum that's fairly near the physical realm. A level of vibration up and over, so to speak. This is something most people never give any credence too...because they have no awareness of it. Fine with me.

"I think it is very unlikely that these creatures exist, and no, i don't believe that America has suddenly become the target for mass alien abduction."

Well, obviously that hasn't happened or we'd be hearing more about it, wouldn't we? I think the phrase "mass alien abduction" is not applicable. There do appear to have been a certain number of pretty convincing incidents, and a few of them became famous for awhile. Is it a real phenomenon? I don't know. I suspect it may be, but if so I suspect it's quite rare on a per capita basis. Look, we abduct animals whenever we want to, because we have the means to, and it pleases us to do so. What guarantee do we have that there isn't some other lifeform out there in the same position analagous to us? If so, they would probably like studying us now and then. If they could do it...they would.

"It's not about whether it's happened to me or not. It's about the balance of probability. I am capable of what I consider reasoned judgement and a healthy scepticism - for the record, I never believed in WMD either."

I didn't think you would have believed in the WMDs, Ruth. It was pretty plainly a political ploy. For me also it's basically about the balance of probability. But the balance of probability does not determine whether I believe or disbelieve in something. It determines whether I think something is likely or not. That isn't the same as believing or disbelieving.

To believe or disbelieve in something is to say absolutely categorically "I KNOW this is true" or "I KNOW this isn't true". I don't know about any of those things for sure, and I didn't know about the WMDs for sure. I just thought about them in terms of the probabilities, and I figured "highly unlikely". So, yes, I do apply Occam's Razor, but it does not lead me to absolute belief or certainty, it simply leads me to a point where I say, "That seems likely" or "that doesn't seem likely".

To say that something doesn't seem likely is not to ridicule or scorn the one who came up with the idea. Nor is it necessarily to think he is mentally unstable. He might be. He might not.

I don't find David Icke's idea about lizard people very likely at all. If it was all he had to say, I'd probably not be interested in listening to him. It's because he has a great deal more to say that makes a great deal of sense that I listen with interest to what he has to say.

When it comes to the lizards...well, I just shrug, because I have no idea whether there's anything to it. Like I say, it doesn't seem likely. Still, I have no basis for ridiculing the man, because I find he has a lot to say that is right on the mark.

And, you see, he is not trying to take a country to war nor does he have the power to. That's serious business. That's why I find politicians scary...but not David Icke.

If David Icke had just stuck to the football, like you say, stigweard, he'd be in clover and everyone would think he was a "great guy"...a real solid and dependable bloke...someone you hope will come to your next party. ;-) That's why I figure he must believe in what he's doing to have gone through all that public ridicule and rejection. That took guts. And that means he's either a bit crackers...or it means he knows about something quite unusual that most of us don't know about...or it's a combination of the two.

I have no final conclusions about that, because I just don't know.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:58 PM

But LH, lots of people have a "belief system", while they can't possibly know for certain whether there is any kind of spiritual realm, or higher power, or afterlife. Belief and certainty are not the same thing.

For the record (again), I also have no belief system, no spirituality, and no real need for one. My life is complicated enough with just the one lifetime to get through... :)

I'm aftraid I really do have doubts about David Icke's sanity. I think there's a difference between thinking something might be true (ie, shape-shifting lizards) and saying you've watched it happen. This is not the same thing as witnessing something which might or might not be a UFO, BTW...I think there's a huge gulf between those two experiences.

Irishenglish, I'm good friends with Graham Chapman's long-time partner. Though I have heard some hair-curling stories, he's never mentioned Ted Heath...

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:59 PM

good post, Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:18 PM

Ruth, I'm sorry, I meant nothing salacious or mean spirited in what I posted. I should have said it was something Michael Palin said once (although it was probably a joke, the part that somehow, stupidly, I missed-d'oh!). Coincidentally, I'm reading the mammoth book of Palin's diaries from 69-79 at the moment-quite interesting for the Python fan.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Bee
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:28 PM

It seems to me that what Icke does is take a phenomenon that is real and then exaggerate it beyond belief.

Rich and powerful people know each other, and always have. They do business together, their families socialize and intermarry, and they naturally work together to benefit themselves and their friends. You can call that conspiracy if you like, and certainly the rich to a great extent control the world because they can and it is profitable to do so.

The same case could be made for artists. It's a fact that most artists of international influence know each other. It's a fact that almost any artist who is in touch with the art world at all has personally met a few or a lot of these world reknowned figures. It's a fact that famous artists support each other's ventures because they share interests and it is profitable to do so.

Wow! It's an art conspiracy! (And there are certainly less well known and resentful artists who see it that way.)

*****

An intelligent relative of mine had the bad fortune to experience many years of severe mental illness, back when mental illness was poorly understood and badly medicated. I was very close to her in later years, when her illness was reduced enough that she could hold a good job, live precariously on her own, and recognize when she was not thinking sanely. At her worst, in the early 1950s, she believed that bears talked to her and gave her a cub to look after - she kept running away to the woods to find it. She believed many UFOs had come close to the ground and looked at her. She believed there were monsters hiding inside some people who were spying on her and reading her thoughts.

She told me she knew those things were not true, but even as a sane person, her memories of them felt exactly the same as memories of real events.

Maybe David Icke had a neural episode of some kind that resulted in his lizard beliefs.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:40 PM

Well, yes, Ruth, most people have what they call a "belief system". That can mean the things that they absolutely beieve...or the things that they prefer to believe...or the things that they have a certain tendency to believe...or the things that they habitually assume to be true but they usually have not managed to prove in any conclusive fashion. Belief systems are very interesting.

I have a certain tendency, for example, to believe in reincarnation and to believe in a soul that survives the body. I don't know it for sure, but I tend to believe it. I didn't get that belief from any specific source or religion....more like I got it from about 10,000 different sources, I guess. It's an assumption that I go on...but I keep in mind the awareness that it is just an assumption on my part, and not a certainty. I consider it likely.

David Icke seems very sure about his lizard people. Nothing short of seeing someone transform into a lizard being before my own eyes would really convince me. I have a friend who claims she saw such a phenomenon occur during a therapy session (she was the therapist, and is a trained professional...she saw the client's face and eyes change dramatically, in that the eyes became 'not human'...the client made a death threat to her at that time...she remained calm and was able to defuse what appeared to be a very tense situation and the client's appearance became normal again). However, one such professional witness is not enough to do it for me when it comes to this one. If I personally knew several reasonably reliable and trustworthy people who'd had such an experience (or said they did), then I'd begin to give it some pretty serious credence. But I still wouldn't know for sure unless I saw it myself.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:22 PM

LOL

I'd sure like to know what sort of personal issues would send a lizard person to see a therapist.   ;-)

;-P

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:36 PM

Lizard issue :-)

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Bee
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:08 AM

CarolC, me too...

"Doctor, my mother abandoned me and my forty-six siblings while we were still in the eggs. My father ate two of my brothers a week later. I've always hated the taste of insects, yet can't resist eating them. I have a very busy schedule - running a secret world government is very time consuming, exhausting! All I really want to do is sun myself for a month on a hot rock somewhere, but do you think the stinking Komodo Overlords care? Of course not, they're gawddamned cold-blooded!".

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:21 AM

Carol, I think it would be all the usual kind of issues that would send anyone else to see a therapist. From what I know about Icke's concept of "lizard people", I think that most of them would not even be consciously aware in any way that they were any different from other people. They wouldn't even know they were lizard people, in other words. They would just be people who thought in certain low frequency patterns such as: lacking empathy or compassion for others, being very materialistic and territorial, being very attached to ritual and outer forms, being obsessed with rules, resorting easily to violence to solve problems, being self-centred and ruthless, etc...

Goodness knows, there are plenty of such people around aren't there? It may be that some of them are thinking in a low kind of a mental vibe that is comparable to thinking from the lower brain stem...our reptilian inheritance. And that may be all there really is to the "lizard people" thing. Icke may have had a partial opening of the third eye (pituitary center) and the transformations he or others see may be a third eye image of the person's consciousness shifting...not a physical bodily change.

That being the case, they would not be running the world in any kind of conscious conspiracy, but simply doing what comes naturally to them.

And that's what I figure is happening in the world. The negative forces in the world are not, in my opinion, a giant, well planned conspiracy...they are just a large number of aggressive-minded people operating at a rather low vibe and doing exactly what comes naturally to them. It can appear like a conspiracy, but it's really just more a form of collective instinctive behaviour, in my opinion. And thereby..."the scum rises to the top"...meaning, the most ruthless and materialistic and competitive individuals are generally rather good at rising high in hierarchical systems of power. It has ever been so.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:11 AM

Good image, Daylia. Does anyone else remember that sci-fi series, V, from the early eighties? I wonder if David Icke watched it?

The lizards are coming!

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 08:30 AM

I tend to see the kinds of people described as not being very introspective, though, and without some amount of introspection, therapy isn't very helpful.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:35 AM

"Rich and powerful people know each other, and always have. They do business together, their families socialize and intermarry, and they naturally work together to benefit themselves and their friends. You can call that conspiracy if you like, and certainly the rich to a great extent control the world because they can and it is profitable to do so."

You're right, except that often (as in the case of the Bilderberg Group) some of these people are democratically elected and they are making decisions that effect the lives of their constituents and beyond in a situation where the electorate is excluded. This is an abuse of their position and is way beyond their own mandate to govern, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:57 AM

Ruth,

You make a good point. When I first heard Icke's claims, I wondered If he had watch that series at an impressionable age.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 10:43 AM

Who needs alien lizard people anyway? After all, we humans are entirely dangerous enough all on our own to totally screw up this world for each other, right? ;-)

Look, I think Icke's notion of the alleged lizard transformations has to do with a consciousness shift in people...not a physical alteration, okay?

And when that consciousness shift occurs, some people (only a few) can see it as a visual change...and they interpret what they're seeing as a physical change when it is in fact not a physical change at all.

And I don't think it's necessarily an alien presence of any kind that's causing all that....I think it's merely the human brain itself working through its lowest and most primitive pathways...which hearken back to our earlier genetic inheritance.

That's my theory...my best guess about what Icke may be talking about.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 11:35 AM

I'm prepared to consider anything possible, myself. But I haven't and probably won't put too much energy into wondering about the lizard people.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Bee
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM

Well, perhaps, Little Hawk. But should we utterly reject our reptile ancestry and call it evil? In fact, no actual lizard/reptile has ever deliberately done something to harm another, outside of pursuing its natural requirements for staying alive. It takes a human brain/mind to contemplate and carry out evil acts for selfish reasons.

I for one reject these anti-lizard sentiments!

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:17 PM

For sure, Bee. ;-) Lizards and reptiles are not innately or consciously evil at all. They are simply very pragmatic and they act on an instinctive basis. What they do is not "evil", certainly not by their standards or needs...but it is more primitive and ruthless and self-centered behaviour than most of us would like to see in other human beings, that's all.

When we say that a human being is behaving like a predatory animal, that is not to say that the animals are evil. It's just to say that we are capable of a higher degree of moral or ethical thought, brotherhood, shared feeling, and behaviour than would be bequeathed to us through our ancient genetic animal inheritances. We are capable of forms of altruism and social idealism and artistic sense, etc, that are rarely if ever seen in the animal kingdom.

The flip side of it, though, is that we are also capable of dreaming up and committing atrocities that animals would never dream of....and when we sink to those depths it truly IS evil...because we are not so innocent as the animals are. We can do better than that.

That's why I say we don't need lizard people to create great evils in this world or to blame those evils on...we just need ordinary people who sink to their lowest form of consciousness and behaviour and act like a primitive beast in a human body instead of reaching upward for their best potential and acting on that instead.

I'm not anti-lizard at all. In fact, I have always loved those little creatures since I was a small child. They are quite beautiful, I think. They may sense that I like them, because I have sometimes coaxed small lizards in the tropics into climbing onto my arm or hand. When it's cool in the morning they appreciate the body heat that they can soak up from a person...but they won't come near you if they're scared of you, and they are generally very cautious of people coming near them. Sometimes I was able to win one of them over regardless, by not making any fast movements, and get it to sit on my arm, and I was always delighted when I managed to do that.

Subject: RE: David Icke
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 12:11 PM

For Wikipedia's article about "reptilian humanoids" click here

In a thought experiment published in 1982, paleontologist Dale Russell, curator of vertebrate fossils at the National Museum of Canada in Ottawa, conjectured that, had the Chicxulub meteorite not exterminated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, bipedal predators (theropods) which existed at that time, such as Troodon, would have evolved into intelligent beings similar in body plan to humans. Troodontids had semi-manipulative fingers, able to grasp and hold objects to a certain degree, and binocular vision....large eyes and three fingers on each hand, one of which would have been partially opposed...

Sightings/myths/beliefs about such creatures are common throughout human history, in many cultures. Examples include the ancient dragons of Asian beliefs, the Loch Ness monster, Ogopogo of Okanogan Lake, BC Canada and other "monsters". Today's UFO buffs equate them with the "Greys" (race of extraterrestrials).

Who knows???

Maybe someday, all will be revealed .... but in the meantime, here's hoping Icke is way WAY out there in left field. I'm going to the beach with my camera right now, though. Gonna find that Kempenfelt Kelly, shoot it, present the evidence and put an end to this debate once and for all!!!   

;)