BS: David Icke and Edward Heath

Subject: BS: DAVIDICKE and EDWARD HEATH
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Apr 14 - 02:11 PM

Is he right about Heath.

Subject: RE: BS: DAVIDICKE and EDWARD HEATH
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Apr 14 - 04:31 PM

Not, I should think, about him being observed turning into a giant lizard.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 12:17 AM

This seems to refer to a blog Icke pub'd in 2007 referring to something he had said about Heath in the 1990s about the latter's conduct in the 1950s.

Heath has been dead for 9 years! Icke "combines discussion about the universe and consciousness with conspiracy theories about public figures being satanic paedophiles, and how apparently unconnected events are really attempts to control humanity. He argued in The Biggest Secret that human beings originated in a breeding program run by a race of reptilians called Anunnaki from the Draco constellation, and that what we call reality is just a holographic experience; the only reality is the realm of the Absolute. He believes in a collective consciousness that has intentionality, in reincarnation, in other possible worlds that exist alongside ours on other frequencies, and in acquired characteristics, arguing that our experiences change our DNA by downloading new information and overwriting the software. We are also able to attract experiences to ourselves by means of good and bad thoughts" [wikipedia]

So he has much form in his accusations about Heath [see my underline above], & is generally regarded as a bit of a 'case'(despite his being an ex-goalkeeper like so many distinguished people from Arthur Conan Doyle to Che Guevara to, er, MtheGM!)

So, out of interest, Dick ~~ Why on earth are you bringing all this up at this time of day?

Regards
~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 03:15 AM

I rather think that he means this. But who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 03:47 AM

Why would a lizard but a yacht? No point.

Why would a lizard conduct an orchestra ? They don't hear in the way we do.



Easily sorted.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 08:58 AM

Ah -- thank you Ed. My Google for some reason only brought up an earlier blog.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 09:09 AM

Nevertheless, as my quote from Wikipedia above shows, Icke has long form for making such accusations, which nobody ever seems to have taken too seriously. Not that that, esp in the Savile context, need be definitive; but he does appear somewhat reminiscent of the boy who cried "wolf"; and to be something of a sensationalist attention-seeker, and more than somewhat of a fantasist.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 12:22 PM

The mystery deepens.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 12:34 PM

he is a very good speaker and he is drawing attention to something the Establishment have until very recently attempted to sweep under the carpet

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 12:49 PM

its odd Heath and Ken Livingstone didn't get on better.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 01:08 PM

Ken Livingstone?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4wfVI7LNc

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 01:18 PM

As to these allegations, Dick: resurrecting them for the moment from under whatever carpet the Establishment [whoever they may be] have contrived to sweep them unbeknownst to all the rest of the populace, do you happen to know whether Elvis & Che Guevara & Lord Lucan were of the party when our former Prime Minister, unnoticed by anybody else, was buggering young men on his yacht, and then murdering them and throwing the bodies overboard?

Just curious...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Musket
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 01:24 PM

Ok so I clicked.

When you consider that an advert saying cancer is a fungus was on it, it set the scene for the rest of it.

Presumably, one of the reasons people use internet to spread lies is that there are enough shallow people with limited mental capacity to read them.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 01:43 PM

Ok own up. Which of you are lizards in human form.
john

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Musket
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 01:45 PM

Would the host human know?

I admit, I am partial to eggs. Eggs again, I'll be bound.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 01:48 PM

the zip up the back is a clue

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 04:13 PM

Michael, obvious members of the establishment are The Royal Family of the disunited kingdom, the church of england are also members of the british establishment who do not behave in a very christian manner,along withe the royal family they own a very large proportion of british property, there are others with more cleverly concealed profiles.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 04:17 PM

Celebrity Net Worth
Does The Royal Family Take Advantage Of UK Taxpayers?
Random Celebrity Article By Brian Warner on July 19, 2013
Like
Tweet
+1
Pin

Being born into royalty might be the greatest stroke of luck anyone on the planet could have. No matter how modern or advanced our society has become, many of today's Kings and Queens are some of the richest people on the planet. And all they had to do was be born. The King of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej, has a personal net worth of $30 billion! By comparison, Queen Elizabeth of England is a mere pauper with a net worth of $450 million. On the other hand, Queen Elizabeth and her entire family are some of the most famous and powerful people in the world. But have you ever wondered how the British royal family makes money? Are they a big group of inbred moochers who take advantage of the UK taxpayer? You be the judge…
Queen Elizabeth and Guards

How Does the Royal Family Make Money?

Queen Elizabeth II is considered a "constitutional monarch" which essentially means that she acts as head of state within the boundaries of a constitution. She is not an absolute monarch like for example King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who has zero regulations or restrictions on how he chooses to rule. Today, Queen Elizabeth's role in British politics is largely symbolic. Her role has been described as a "focus of national unity", or in other words "a tourist attraction". On the other hand, all British public servants (police, military, postal carriers etc) are required to swear an oath of loyalty to her Majesty. Furthermore, technically speaking British people are not "citizens" they are the Queen's subjects. And if that wasn't bad enough, the taxpayers of Great Britain do indeed subsidize the Queen and her extended Family's lavish lifestyles.

Whoever is the reigning King or Queen of England is is the benefactor of "The Crown Estate". The Crown Estate is a $13 billion real estate portfolio that has been passed down by generations of British royals dating as far back as the 11th century. The portfolio includes nearly $10 billion worth of urban property and $3 billion worth of rural land. The Crown Estate owns golf clubs, parks, apartment buildings, retail space, mineral rights and much more. It even technically owns the marine life reaching 12 nautical miles off the coast of England. In 2012, profits from The Crown Estate were nearly $400 million!

Does all that money go directly to the Queen's bank account? Not since 1760. After running up an embarrassing amount of public debt in the early 1700s, King George III was forced to surrender his family's hereditary rights to The Crown Estate in exchange for an annual allowance of $1.3 million. That $1.3 million allowance, which is the equivalent to $190 million in modern dollars, was to pay for the King's household expenses and royal obligations. The annual allowance was adjusted periodically but stayed relatively unchanged for more than two hundred years. In April 2012, Parliament passed the "Sovereign Grant" which entitles the sitting monarch to the rough equivalent of 15% of revenues from The Crown Estate. The remaining money goes directly to the Treasury. The Queen does not actually profit off The Crown Estate, she is just entitled to services equivalent to the predetermined amount. Services like travel, security and maintenance at the "Occupied Royal Palaces". Typically, Queen Elizabeth uses between $40 and $60 million worth of public services each year. In 2012 The British government spent a grand total of $52 million on property upkeep, communication, security and travel expenses for The Queen. Perhaps most importantly, The Queen saves countless millions every year by not having to pay any rent, mortgages or property tax on her various castles. But wait… there's more!
Royal Family Portrait

The Royal Family

What might really make your blood boil is that The Queen does not pay any taxes on these state provided benefits. However, since 1992 she has voluntarily agreed to pay personal and capital gains tax on her other sources of private income, like any other taxpayer. The Queen's private income, also known as the Privy Purse, is mainly derived from her ownership of The Duchy of Lancaster, a 46,000 acre territory that has been passed down to the sitting monarch since 1399. The Queen earns around $25 million per year off The Duchy of Lancaster and she uses this money to fund expenses incurred by the extended Royal Family. There is only one other Duchy in England, The Duchy of Cornwall.

The Duchy of Cornwall was established in 1337 and is passed to the eldest living heir of the reigning British monarch. Up until April 2013, The Duchy of Cornwall could only be passed to a male heir and the monarch did not have a son, the estate was held by the Crown for the next generation. Prince Charles is the current Duke of Cornwall and when he becomes King, the Duchy passes to Prince William and in turn to William's eldest child when William is king. Thanks to April's "Succession of the Crown Act", if Kate Middleton has a girl, when William becomes king that child will be the first woman in history to inherit the Duchy. The Duchy is roughly the size of the city of Chicago and produces income mainly from apartment rentals, agriculture sales and natural resources. In 2012, the Duchy of Cornwall produced an income of $31.77 million for Charles. After $15.22 million worth of costs were removed Prince Charles was left with $16.55 million. He voluntarily pays a 40% tax rate on that income which equaled roughly $6.71 million last year. The total estimated value of the Duchy of Cornwall is $1.3 billion. Interestingly, though Charles volunteers to pay taxes, the Duchy itself does not. Think of the Duchy of Cornwall like a corporation that does not have to pay any taxes. For example, the Duchy owns the land that houses Dartmoor prison. Dartmoor pays $2 million in rent to the Duchy for the use of that land. No tax is paid on that $2 million. Many royal critics cry foul at this arrangement and would love to see the Duchy pay capital gains and corporate taxes like any other major business operation.

As a helicopter search and rescue pilot for the Royal Air Force Prince William earned $70,000 a year and his brother Prince Harry currently makes $60,000 as a Captain in the British Army. William and Harry also inherited a $10 million trust fund established by their late mother, Princess Di. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is entitled to an annual salary of $580,000 for his duties as the Queen's spouse. Additional annuities in the $200-$400,000 range exist for The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Duke of Gloucester and various other Princesses and Duchesses. Every year, Queen Elizabeth reimburses the state for these annuities from her own bank accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 04:59 PM

Dick, I don't think anyone is going to disagree that the Royal Family is extremely wealthy, but that seems to be getting away from what you first asked, which (if I understand correctly) is whether Edward Heath was a paedophile rapist and mass-murderer. The idea is preposterous, as are all of Icke's ludicrous fantasies.

Some years ago I read a great sci-fi short story. Following a TV hypnotist programme in which everyone watching is hypnotised, the hypnotist orders everyone to "wake up". One person watching wakes up completely, and immediately discovers the world is being run by a bunch of loathsome lizards from another galaxy who have hypnotised humans into perceiving them as fellow humans. It's obviously where Icke got his hilarious theory from, but as my reading the story pre-dates it by many years I have no details of author or date of publication. Can anyone help with that?

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 05:45 PM

You sure that wasn't an episode of The Twilight Zone?

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 06:19 PM

Oh. I get it, Dick. It was HMQ in league with Heath who raped & murdered all those young men & threw them in the river or wherever it was. Ah, well ~~ that's all right, then? But you still haven't told me where Lord Lucan & Elvis came into it.

Next credulous booby, please!

teeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee................

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 07:08 PM

No, not Twilight Zone. Definitely a short story. I remember when I first heard of Icke's lizard ravings I immediately thought - aha! Been here before.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 04:44 AM

Space lizards, paedophiles, The royal family; all petty delusions compared to my increasing belief that I have been abducted by aliens from the distant planet of Bluegrass, who have implanted me with a device which causes banjo players to home in on me and play their instruments. Ah! the pain the torture.
( no truths were harmed in the writing of this post)
john

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Patrish
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 05:31 AM

Yes I think David Icke was correct in his outing of Heath. In the same book he also outed Jimmy Saville.
The link below is a short interview also outing Heath.

I have read lots of info that David has written and he always provides back up for his theories.

Taking people out of their comfort zones is a difficult thing, most people don't want to there, easier to do no research and make fun of the subject and the person posting it.

Try doing a little research first.


click here

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 05:58 AM

We've already had this link. Odd that no bodies ever seem to have surfaced, or any hue & cry been raised over the missing youths ~~ even foundlings often have some who will miss them. Still, I have no doubt that Heath & the Queen managed it all by the simple expedient of riding thru hyperspace to Planet Zog and getting up to all this nefariousness in its notoriously fœtid atmosphere.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 06:54 AM

MtheGM, seek enlightenment here;

Icke

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Musket
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 06:54 AM

I'm all for wind up, but just in case our cousins are reading this thread, (one at least will be moderating it) Will those defending Icke please make your dry sense of humour known? Jokes tend to be more literal over the pond, (though no less funny to be fair.)

Although there is nothing funny in calling a person who spent his adult life trying to do something for his country a paedophile. I may not have agreed with his politics in most matters, but without evidence, it's neither nice nor clever to perpetuate such fantasy is it?   he isn't here to defend himself. If he were, Icke wouldn't have dared print it. It's one thing to say someone is an alien lizard, it's another to accuse them of something that could feasibly happen.

Not that he would have to.

Neither would the special branch team looking after him from the minute he became PM to the day he died.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 07:49 AM

despite his being an ex-goalkeeper like so many distinguished people from Arthur Conan Doyle to Che Guevara to, er, MtheGM!

and, of course, Niels Bohr who went on to come up with all sorts of crackpot ideas about atomic physics.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 10:52 AM

Patrish, I'm sorry to say you let me down. The link you provided did not provide any back-up. In fact I can't recall Icke providing any back-up for any of his "theories" - theories which I am sure any psychiatrist would recognise as fairly common paranoid delusions. All that is different about Icke is that he probably has more than most, and has made a lot of money from them.

But you seem to know more about him than me. Perhaps you can explain all his ideas and what sort of proof he has. I believe the latest one is that the moon is really an artificial satellite which beams hypnotising telepathic radio waves which enslave humans so we can't see the evil lizards controlling us, but if I'm a little behind I would be fascinated to know what the most recent developments on Planet Icke are.

And while you're at it, can you explain as well why the lizard-men haven't rubbed David out yet. He must have irritated them a lot over the years, and as they control absolutely everything the elimination of just one uppity little human can't be too much of a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 11:24 AM

Remember to tune to A=432 when singing this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Musket
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 11:57 AM

But everybody uses cheap guitar tuners that are fixed, FIXED I tell you! to 440!!!!

Bastard lizards....



When you mention distinguished goalies, don't forget Bob Bolder.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 12:15 PM

Will the lizards be watching this thread? Would garlic around my windows help?
john

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 12:19 PM

A little background music please maestro.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 02:31 PM

It amazes me that people can think that Ickes is crazy but also believe in angels who visit a young virgin who gives birth without having sex and produces a son who can walk on water, raise people from the dead, including himself, and is, in fact, the son of the creator of everything, a being who knows everything that everyone is doing at every second of their life!
Now, that really is crazy!

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 06:15 PM

Musk: Re Bob Bolder. You miss the point of my collection; which is of distinguished people in other fields than football who have incidentally also been goalkeepers at some period in their lives. Some others I would name are all 3 of The Three Tenors: Carreras actually signed amateur papers for Barça. Mr Bolder was just one of a pretty fair number who have been professional goalkeepers but is noted for no other attribute at all. I could "mention" heaven knows how many of them!

Snail - Thank you; but both Bohr brothers are already well established on my list.

As folk people, did you all know that Noel Murphy was goalkeeper for several seasons for Ireland Schoolboys. I remember a scratch kickabout game at one Norwich Folk festival in which he kept goal for one team and I for the other. I must admit that he might just have been that itsy·witsy itty·bitty ickle bit better than me!...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:25 AM

And you are dismissing the many talents of Mr Bolder!

He had a few you know, till we sold him to Liverpool and they spoiled him by making him an understudy to Bruce Grobbelaar.

Does he count? He went on to have a career in match fixing for betting syndicates.



Bob Bolder could down a pint faster than Mel Sterland. Beat that!

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:38 AM

Heath is dead. Putin is very much alve and what this woman has to say about him is a lot more entertaining and at an even higher plane of delusionality than Icke:

http://crazygail.com/Vladimir_Putin

There is very much more on her multifarious websites than you'll spot at first - and some of her sites accuse each other of being impostures. Don't start trying to figure it all out unless you have a few hours to spare.

Is there anybody else out there who's put a comparable effort into building up a delusional system on the web?

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 04:11 AM

Jesus and Mohammed seem to be sharing the honours at present. But Icke does come a close third.

I would say fourth after the Flying Spaghetti Monster but pastafarianism seems quite logical at times.....

I do have problems with these threads. If we are all trying to find witty piss taking then fine. But all it takes is one poor sod who is gullible to pop up and the rest of us are mocking the afflicted.

That said, lizards are fair game. Accusing real people of murder and paedophilia is a but distasteful, especially when the author is wallowing in fantasy. A bit like those nutters who shamefully can't accept that Princess Di had a car crash. Sick buggers have to look for conspiracy and, like Icke, pick on a family not in a position to fight back.

Either that or I take my hat off to Icke for being the best wind up merchant since those who wrote the gospels.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 05:21 AM

Ah, Musket, you were being funny. Sorry; but as I had never heard of Mr Bolder or his nefarious doings, I fear the joke fell flat for my part; tho no doubt there were 3, or maybe even 4, readers of the thread that got it.

We have been into Diana Spencer's death many times before. I will just say, yet again, that she was being driven by an experienced professional driver, & experienced professional drivers who wish to continue professionally experiencing driving, for the purpose of the necessary maintenance of themselves and their dependents, do NOT get pissed while on the job & proceed to kill their passengers 'by accident'. You explain how M Paul came to be in that state other than by some form of fixing or sabotage, and I will believe that her (astonishingly convenient to all sorts of important people) death was not a case of murder in some form. Till then, I frankly believe it is you who are being disingenuous.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 05:40 AM

I was hoping no bugger gets it. (Ok, I know of three Owls fans and one Liverpool delusionist on these threads so you may be right. )

The relevance was a comment on the relevance of this thread to reality.

At least Bob exists.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 05:45 AM

I just noticed your second paragraph. I had genuinely forgotten that you once shared your irrational thoughts with us. It wasn't aimed at you.

That said, it is a wee bit distasteful and upsetting for the families concerned for people to give credence to such awful fairy stories.

Better I blame the cooking sherry on your part than confront your weird claims.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 05:55 AM

Sorry, Ian; but I do not regard my views on that topic as weird, but yours as mulishly irrational. Obviously a matter on which we are never going to agree. I feel it reasonable to point out, however, that you have entirely failed to engage with my challenge to explain how the unfortunate M Henri Paul got into the state he did on that occasion, other than by the intervention of some ill-wishing third party or parties.

~M~

The 'cooking sherry thing', BTW, might have been a faintly humorous tease at the beginning of the previous decade, but really is in danger of wearing a bit thin, tha knowst!

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 06:10 AM

... and re your "distasteful and upsetting for the families concerned"; can you not see how distasteful, & distressing to his family, must be your disrespect for the professionalism, the character, and the memory, of poor M Paul?

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: redhorse
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 06:13 AM

Sqeezer: I read that story too. I think it may have been by Frederic Brown

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 06:24 AM

Conspiracies do exist but are almost invariably unmasked. Conspiracy theories, which are by all rational measures unsustainable, persist because people delude themselves into only accepting evidence for the conspiracy and conveniently ignoring the evidence against.
The principle of Occam's razor suggests that the simplest hypothesis is usually the correct one — or as the character Gil Grissom in "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" succinctly puts it, if you hear hoofbeats, "think horses, not zebras."
(VOODOO HISTORIES The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History. By David Aaronovitch)

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 07:17 AM

Yes, John. But just now & then they will be zebras. & if you should just catch a glimpse of black & white stripes...

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 07:21 AM

I am BTW in general a scornful debunker of conspiracy series. They did, so, walk on the Moon, not in the Arizona Desert.

But in both the cases of both Princess Di & Marilyn, the clear advantageousness to many important people of their removal is one piece of evidence which must be taken into account.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 07:49 AM

With no offence meant, it's Fredric. That should make Mr Google more helpful. I'd love to find the story, too.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 08:39 AM

Get your Boys Own Dictionary 1935 out and look up the following words;

Fortuitous
Serendipity
Coincidence

The fog may begin to clear and people might stop saying "excuse me, very interesting but I need to stand over there now" at parties.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 12:01 PM

OK, so have the last word Musket. Both my mothers-in-law are dead, so you might as well take over.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 12:11 PM

No. Buggerit. Not till you have answered my main point without facetiousnesses about dictionaries & such [& I would back my vocabulary against yours any day of the week].

I say again: A professional driver is no more going to be drunk in charge of passengers thatn a surgeon is going to be drunk while pe4rforming a delicate operation ~~ unless he has been in some way deliberatly sabotaged.

Just answer that point.

Or shut up and go away.

Please.

Toujours la politesse!

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 12:47 PM

It is a nice view of the world that all professionals behave professionally. The hard evidence points to the contrary with surgeons, pilots, and train drivers all being found incapable through drink and arrested for the offence.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/irfan-faiz-drunk-pilot-jailed-2838765
http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/drunk-surgeon-arrested-as-he-demands-to-operate-on-patient-1-485405
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2588358/Drunk-tube-driver-50-arrested-downing-bottle-vodka-getting-Jubilee-line-train-controls-following-row-girlfriend.html
john

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 01:16 PM

"a wee bit distasteful and upsetting for the families concerned"
.,,.
Once again, agreed. But, likewise once again, you seem not to take into account the family of M Paul. Didn't he count? Only a respectable working man, not a nob or toff, millionaire's son or ex-princess of any kind; his family no millionaire tycoons or Peers of the Realm: so his family's grief, and the loss presumably of their main support & breadwinner, can be set at nought?

Shame on you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 01:23 PM

As a regulator in healthcare, I referred a consultant colo rectal surgeon to The GMC when he was arrested after stuffing his car one hour after leaving theatre and he was automatically breathalysed by attending officers.

When looking at risk management I found that this was not a one off. Many people in high stress jobs can go to pot. My own liver had some hammer when I was feeding the beast for that matter. Mrs Musket never drinks for at least 24 hours after a theatre list even though she is not on call for complications. It is rare but not unknown.

One of Prince Charles's special branch lads was kicked out after a random breath test they are liable to immediately after driving with HRH in the back.

How many drink drivers need their licence for their work ? Back to doctors, enough lose their licence yet just about every one did their stint in A&E clearing up the human carnage of drink drivers and their results.



Does that begin to answer your question ? After all, Occams Razor and all that. A man in a high pressure role gets pissed versus the Royal family conspiring to kill the mother of their lads.

Mmmmm




My vocabulary includes words such as nipple. Gimp mask. Beer.

What does yours contain?

I too have the honour of two mother in laws or mothers in law, if you will.


Yes. Gimp mask is two words. I'm thick as well as rational.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 01:23 PM

... & moreover, if

I repeat if -- a conditional; I am not committed to either view as established fact, merely contemptuous of the assertiveness of the entire discounting of one of the patent possibilities

if, again, there was anything underhand or non-accidental about the deaths, it is this very cynicism as to the very existence of that possibility on which the perpetrators will clearly have relied.

Apologies insofar as I am responsible -- I didn't introduce this theme to the thread -- for all this drift. But it's IMO a bit more interesting than the resolute idiocies of the pathetic Icke, at that!...

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 01:27 PM

Sorry - exact x-post; look at the times. I admit your possibility. I think you are being absurd in not admitting at least the existence of mine. & I made no accusations or suggestions as to who might have been responsible, so don't, please, put words into my mouth.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 01:36 PM

My vocabulary includes words such as nipple. Gimp mask. Beer.

What does yours contain?
.,,.
musketry.

obstinacy.

dentistry.

pertinacity

masquerade.

religiosity.

perfection.

pussycat.

Renaissance Neoplatonism.

floccinaucininhilipilification.

a.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 01:52 PM

Ah, Top Trumps!

Skulduggery
Horatio
Biryani
Modal
Corner flag (two words, my rules)
Panzer
Overman
Snap
Microphone
Laryngoscope
Credence

That last word is useful it describes how your stance feeds the conspiracy merchants.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 02:41 PM

Cambridge.

once.

two.

Words which I value highly as they cannot possibly be both pronounced and spelt as they are.

Except that...

Similarly...

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 02:46 PM

and I suspect you meant 'credulity' rather than 'credence'.

You're welcome...

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:22 PM

No. I said what I meant.

The faith connotations were intentional.

But you do crosswords. You knew that.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 04:14 PM

The correct spelling is

floccinaucinihilipilification or floccinoccinihilipilification

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 07:40 PM

IF I can get a word in edgewise ....

Thanks for the tip Redhorse. It very well could have been by the excellent F. Brown - it certainly had all of his style.

A Googletrawl of his work does not raise any titles which ring any bells but I will remain on the look-out.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 08:45 PM

Guest Squeezer: Some years ago I read a great sci-fi short story. Following a TV hypnotist programme in which everyone watching is hypnotised, the hypnotist orders everyone to "wake up". One person watching wakes up completely, and immediately discovers the world is being run by a bunch of loathsome lizards from another galaxy who have hypnotised humans into perceiving them as fellow humans. It's obviously where Icke got his hilarious theory from, but as my reading the story pre-dates it by many years I have no details of author or date of publication. Can anyone help with that?


The short story was "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" by Ray Nelson, published in, I think, "Astounding" in around 1962-63 and featured in a couple of 60s sci-fi anthologies of short stories. I believe John Carpenter made a film based on the story in the mid 80s, called something like "They Live", but you're correct, it was definitely originally a Ray Nelson story. I have about 3 copies of it in various anthologies (bit of a sci-fi nut, me) and always think when I re-read it that it MUST have been where Icke got his ideas from.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 08:50 PM

Ray Nelson's MAIN claim to fame is the invention of the "propellor" beanie....I think he once said he'd rather be remembered for that than for his writing.

I suspect Icke probably has one, but covered in tinfoil!

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:31 AM

"No. I said what I meant.
The faith connotations were intentional.
But you do crosswords. You knew that."
.,,.
ɷɷɷBUMɷɷɷ: the only "faith connotation" is a bit of furniture --

cre·dence
noun
1.
belief as to the truth of something: to give credence to a claim.
2.
something giving a claim to belief or confidence: letter of credence.
3.
Also called credence table, credenza. Ecclesiastical . a small side table, shelf, or niche for holding articles used in the Eucharist service.

Meant 'creed' or 'credo', dincha Musky?

Double-LoL

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 02:50 AM

Take yer pick between credence table and the root creed.

It seems to be an article of faith with you any road up. Irresistible after your vocabulary claim.

Dissing Bob Bolder gets my goat too for that matter. As does reference to the cooking sherry where you are concerned. Not to mention Baileys.

The liver is evil and must be punished.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:20 AM

OOI, Musk ~~ How many goats do you own? If it's only the one, it must get absolutely fed up with getting 'got' so interminably!

Aaaaaarrrrrrggghhhhhh ---···---   ♈♈♈

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 05:29 AM

... & see my note re "Freudian displacement" re your cooking-sherry obsession on the 'demise of boring' thread.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:00 AM

Bugger off. You bit the first time I mentioned cooking sherry and didn't come down from off the ceiling for ages.

My goat gets tethered to the cars of many people. Wait your turn.

Freud? A load of old cock.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:22 AM

You're an unmannerly fellow, Musket. Why can't you try being at least reasonably civil? I suppose it would be too "bourgeois" or some such cant for one of your persuasions. Meanwhile, I intend to suspend any further communication with you until you learn to behave like a gentleman. I expect you will try some smarty-pants comeback; if so, you are most welcome to the last word...

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:03 AM

Who are you calling a cant? Do I sound like a southerner? I'm a cunt, thank you very much.

I wouldn't raise my hopes up too much with the gentleman bit either.

My smarty pants are a posing pouch for that matter.

And on that bomb shell, it's back to the studio where Lord Lucan will explain how he escaped from the Paris tunnel on the back of Shergar, collecting his reward money from Prince Phillip en route.

Ooh la la..

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Patrish
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:21 AM

Hi,

The link below takes you to David's latest book "The Perception Deception" If you scroll down you can read some of the reviews.

This is for the person that wanted to know what David was doing now. He has also started a TV station called The Peoples Voice.

I think it should be made clear that David outed both Heath and Saville in 1999 in his book "The Biggest Secret" when both were still alive.(Heath died in 2005 and Saville in 2011)

As for all the money he has made - he lives in a one bedroom flat on the Isle of Wight and drives an old Mondeo - not really the trappings of wealth.

I saw him at Wembley Arena in 2012 and was very impressed. It was a 9 hour presentation - I have added a link to this below. In his presentations and books he provides many links so that you can check out the source documents yourself. He also reminds his readers and/or audience to do their own research. Not bad advice.

Patrish x


Davids latest book


David's Presentation at Wembley 2012

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:27 PM

I don't know which is weirder, David Icke, or the people listening to his mumbo jumbo for nine hours.
john

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 12:45 PM

I know what is weirder than listening to David Icke's mumbo jumbo for nine hours, people listening to Christian mumbo jumbo for 2,000yrs!

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 01:09 PM

Amen

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 02:11 PM

Rob Naylor - Thanks very much indeed for that. I've just tracked down the story on s6.zetaboards.com and it's the one I had in mind.

Patrish - First of all I have to make an admission - I haven't read any of Icke's books, and certainly don't have the mental stamina to sit through 9 hrs of him, so you could fairly say that I'm not in a position to argue against him in detail, only by criticising what I've actually heard him say on video, or read on the web.

A year or two ago I was curious enough about his beliefs to look at his website and do a little internet research about him. I suppose you could say I am partly amused and partly exasperated by what he says, and also fascinated and puzzled by why his ideas have such a hold on some people. I wonder if those people all have something in common, and if so what. I suspect it doesn't have much to do with intelligence or education, simply because I knew a man who had plenty of both who accepted without question every crack-pot conspiracy theory he came across. (One day, when he was happily married, he just stopped believing it all). As far as that goes, you don't seem stupid or uneducated either. But then intelligence or education have nothing to do with delusions, and some delusions (as Tunesmith has noted above) are even approved by the dominant culture of a society. (By "delusion" I mean a logical system of thought and belief which is based on an untruth. When the delusion has a threatening nature it is a paranoid delusion.)

There are many intelligent people who sincerely believe, for instance, that the universe is governed by invisible spirits, that their thoughts are controlled by radio waves, that the lady next door kidnaps and eats little children. Some of these people are looked after in hospital institutions, some work for religious institutions, some live lives that are otherwise quite normal and productive.

Perhaps it's mainly Icke's personality which is more convincing than what he says. It's certainly not any proof for belief which convinces, because of proof he hasn't a shred. I mean, proof of a sort that would be acceptable to a scientist or detective. He boldly states a bizarre opinion (the moon is an alien spaceship, the world is run by shape-shifting lizards, governments deliberately weaken children's immune systems by vaccinations) with no pretence at independent verification, other than, for instance, a claim that ancient Hebrews believed this and it's in the Bible, or the same symbol appears here and here so the has to be an underlying conspiracy, or this word resembles that word so there must be connection.

I'm not saying that there aren't conspiracies or secret government programmes going on, or that the rich and power do not have, well …. wealth and power. Nor that intelligent people can't believe in David Icke. I will say that it's possible to be intelligent and foolish at the same time.

It is of course a feature of a delusion that that rational proof makes no impact at all on it. I remember a psychiatric worker once telling me about a man who believed he had two hearts. In an attempt to defeat his delusion they showed him an x-ray of his chest, but he just said it was someone else's. The delusion was too important to him to be affected by proof of the opposite.

If there's one thing David Icke has it's personality. When he's in good form he is a fluent and persuasive speaker – conversational but very much in charge, with energy and flashes of humour, and a good command of his points of argument (what in other circumstances might be called "facts"). Once his points are taken as facts, and a kind of logic applied to develop them into a systematic belief, and the logic slanted to appear threatening, then you have a sort of religion based on what is usually called conspiracy theory – the belief that ordinary people are puppets made to move at the command of other humans, or of aliens from outer space, and that nothing in books, newspapers, the internet, TV, or radio, is true. Once you accept that nothing you are told is true, you have sealed yourself into a tiny enclosed space where the same stale air is continually circulated and the outside atmosphere is poison.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Patrish
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 11:04 AM

Squeezer, I liked your reply apart from the last bit. Far from being in a sealed room, I feel if thats where I have escaped from.

I don't think it is healthy to blindly follow anyone or anything. David Icke makes you think, makes you ask questions. He beleives that we are all one and that we all have infinite possibilites and that love is a huge power.

Your Psychiatric friend reminds me of aquote from Franz Fanon "Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect that core belief, they will rationalise, ignore and even deny anything that does not fit with the core belief"

This is often the case with some of the conspiracy theories that came true

Another way of describing cognitive dissonance is called "The elephant in the room" We can all see it but it takes too much from the comfort zone, so it's ignored.

I could go on with various examples, but this thread is about Icke and Heath. Why didn't Heath or Saville sue Icke for liable? Saville in particular was very quick to threaten journalists if they suggested he liked them young.

I think its a good thing to question what the Main Stream Media tell us, it would be naive to believe it all.

Cheers for now,

Patrish x

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 01:15 PM

Well, there is something we can agree on – I don't believe everything in main stream media either. But the things I disbelieve are mainly the things everyone else disbelieves too, such as how the welfare of ordinary people is important to David Cameron. Some things I might be dubious about, but I don't automatically disbelieve everything on principle as, it seems to me, a lot of conspiracy theorists do.

And we can agree that there are conspiracies around, and that governments and multinationals have secret plans and operations of one sort or another. Not all of these are malign. Actually, I'm quite glad that the UK government has an anti-terrorist department which has had some success, and I would be surprised if multinational drug companies are not working hard on producing drugs to combat or even cure some of the diseases which destroy the lives and happiness of so many people. Your clicky link didn't work for me so I can't comment on conspiracies or secret operations which have been proved to exist; I'll just say that it's naïve to expect governments to admit to projects of this kind just because a journalist asks them. For instance, for years the Pentagon denied that there was anything resembling stealth aircraft in the planning. Quite correctly, they lied in order to keep security.

I agree entirely with your comment on cognitive dissonance and the elephant in the room scenario, (though I don't think they are quite the same thing) but what is troubling about most conspiracy theorists is the absence of rational analysis, or the consideration of reasonable alternatives, or the application of known facts; and the tendency instead to prefer instead the most fanciful and extreme of interpretations. I suppose a lot of them are young teenagers who subscribe to the idea that if you believe anything with enough sincerity it becomes true, and who have no interest in finding out, for instance, how the physical world really works. And so they believe in vampires and shape-shifting monsters and everything Hollywood sci-fi can produce, and because everyone they know believes in the Illuminati then that just has to be true too. They are unaware that the existence of a Nazi Zionist organisation is as impossible as time-travel. But then, many conspiracy theorists are not ignorant teenagers, but apparently just as impressionable.

I can't answer your questions about Heath and Saville. I don't know, and unlike conspiracy theorists I won't present an opinion as a fact. It seems that Saville's activities were well known about in media circles, and presumably David Icke picked up a tip from an insider. Although Saville was never questioned, the weight of consistent allegations seems overwhelming. Presumably he decided that it wasn't a good idea to invite any sort of investigation and hoped Icke would be ignored. Heath might have decided to not sue for libel for a couple of reasons; we will never know for sure. But Icke hasn't "outed" Heath, in the sense that he has revealed him to be a paedophile. He has merely made an allegation. And if you accept that the allegation is true without considering any reasons why it might be completely wrong then you are doing precisely what you say you want to avoid – i.e. becoming the sort of person who accepts uncritically everything you are told. The last thing David Icke wants you to do is to ask reasonable questions about his many fantastic theories, or to keep a reasonably open mind. Remember, if you open your mind too much, your brain falls out.

So Patrish, can reveal just how much an Icke disciple you are? Do you believe humanity is enslaved by a race of shape-shifting telepathic lizards from "the constellation of Draco" (whatever that means.) That alternatively (or additionally) humanity is enslaved by a trans-national organisation of Nazi Zionists, the so-called Illuminati? That the moon is a giant artificial satellite built by the lizard-men to beam hypnotic radio waves at us? That vaccination against disease is an evil plan by the government to weaken the immune systems of young children? That the DVLA is a front for a sinister organisation which keeps hundreds of young children in disused Welsh coalmines for use in satanic rites? (I made one of those up by the way.)

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:05 PM

Icke makes me think too.

Makes me think I might start a religion. There's obviously money in gullible fools About time I had a go.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:07 PM

Musket, if it involves lots of singing, swearing, and drinking, sign me up. may as well get in at the start. That is how the money is made.
john

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:43 PM

I thought I'd try to make it look different to Christian services myself, but if you think borrowing their clothes might make us more dosh?

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 03:53 PM

As they say in my neck of the woods, "wheer there's muck there's brass"
john

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Patrish
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 01:38 PM

Rational analysis - there is loads of it, but people don't want to know it - comfort zone or cognitive dissonance. take 9/11 for an example, architect and engineers for 9/11 truth - if you google that you will get loads of rational analysis

Am I a David Icke disciple - no

How far down the rabbit hole have I gone? I don't know, but I know there is no getting out.
Vaccination - follow the money

patrish x

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: johncharles
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:17 PM

"architect and engineers for 9/11 truth" is an organisation set up by an architect, Richard Gage, who appears to have lost his way, and spends his time touring the world preaching a conspiracy theory which if you look elsewhere appears to have been well and truly debunked by real scientists.
If you are really doubting the efficacy of vaccination, I suspect you are already so far down the rabbit hole that any attempt to involve you in a reasoned debate is doomed to failure.
Nighty night don't let the lizards bite.
john

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:29 PM

No problem Patrish. One of the small things you have to put up with though is the pisstaking that rational bastards like me come out with.

The internet isn't a good place to entertain fantasy. You tend to he taken at face value and that will never do eh?

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 09:47 AM

Hope you are still there Patrish. Been unwell for a few days.

You suggest that vaccination is a racket just to make money. Sure, vaccinations make money for drug companies, like any products do for their manufacturers. It's the way human economic systems are set up, for better or worse depending on the product. The point about vaccinations is that they work, and so prevent a lot of misery, disability, and unnecessary death. Smallpox used to a killer – it's now been eradicated. Sixty years ago kids were paralysed or dead from polio – it doesn't happen in the West now. And a few years ago many people refused to have their children vaccinated against measles – so there was a measles epidemic last year in Swansea in which thousands were ill and, I believe, one died.

Sorry, but I couldn't follow what you said about rational analysis. It seems to me that the problem is there isn't enough.

You don't sound very happy just now, in fact I get the impression you feel somehow trapped in a particular mindset. That rabbit hole might be leading you to a fantasy world in which nothing is as it seems and logic is upside down. While you still have some insight, keep in mind that sometimes (perhaps a lot more often than you might think) things really are as they seem, and a little common sense will take you a long way.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:00 PM

keep an open mind.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:32 PM

Just don't keep a disturbed irrational mind though.

Not nice when people laugh in your face and suggest B&B at the funny farm.

They love eggs by the way. Flies are fine but eggs are better.

Subject: RE: BS: David Icke and Edward Heath
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 10:15 AM

Patrish: Rational analysis - there is loads of it, but people don't want to know it - comfort zone or cognitive dissonance. take 9/11 for an example, architect and engineers for 9/11 truth - if you google that you will get loads of rational analysis

Actually, the rational analysis has been done by the engineers who've debunked this conspiracy theory thoroughly and effectively, to the same level that the "moon landings were faked" conspiracy has been debunked.