BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke

Subject: BS: So he may have been right after all
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 03:00 PM

This Guy

We thought he was a nutter and of course the midia had us believe he was someone to be laughed at, but some aspects of what he has to say now ring true.

Sal (avoiding being hypnotized)

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM

He's an interesting fellow, Sal, obviously dead serious about what he's doing and not afraid to take the flak.

I've read some of his writings. Again, very interesting. I have no final conclusions about it all...how could I? Am I really in a position to know about such things? Nope. Unlike most people, I am quite willing to admit that. To admit that I simply don't know.

Do I trust the mainstream sources of information in this society to tell me the truth about everything? LOL! Not one bit.

People are deeply afraid to admit they don't know, to admit in fact that they don't have a bloody clue about much that goes on in the world, so they all seem to have a definite opinion about what's real and what isn't, and they got it straight from the mainstream authorities who talk to them through the magic box. Just ask 'em. ;-) Oh, yeah, they have all the answers already, straight from the magic box in their living room, and they certainly wouldn't want to waste time listening to anything different now, would they?

Someone might laugh at them! Ouch. Can't have that.

Best not even talk about it where anyone can hear you.

Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM

I think it was more the turquoise shell suits he wore that put people off, rather than what he actually had to say.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:36 PM

Turquoise shell suits? Really? Hmm. Sounds very eyecatching.

I think it was what he actually had to say. People either are outraged by it...or they're convulsed with amusement...or they're quite impressed. Depends on how it hits them.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:52 PM

Anyway, he's dead right about one thing. The mental condition of virtually the entire public nowadays is akin to a state of programmed hypnosis...and people are not free, but they probably think they are, since they can't see the bars.

If you talk to people outside the mental box they are used to being in, they mostly assume you must be crazy.

As such, it's basically a complete waste of time talking to most people about anything unusual like that, in my opinion, but perhaps I am less optimistic than Mr Icke...or less willing to be dumped on by people.

I'd rather just say I have no opinion and leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM

Having watched that documentary previously on youtube, along with some earlier footage of Icke from the early nineties, from what I saw I came away with a greatly heightened respect for the man. A lot of his analysis of world events, political leadership etc. seems pretty much on the money; and even the claims about reptilian shapeshifters, etc., whilst certainly a little speculative, are actually no more so than most religious thought throughout history, when you break it down. I think he has much to contribute philosophically to these debates.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 04:15 AM

Where is he now? I've not seen him around, has he been 'done in' ?

I must google him and find out.

Sal (forever scepticle)

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 04:39 AM

Read "Flat Earth News" by journalist Nick Davies for a damning report of the meedja.

For some reason, the book isn't likely to get vast coverage on the radio and TV, where we find heavy criticism of everything ELSE.

And where else do MOST people get their information and iopinions apart from radio, TV and newspaper?

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:26 AM

the Protocols of Zion is evidence not of a Jewish plot, but of a reptilian plot of Illuminati lizards. from:

Beset by lizards (GUARDIAN article)

In Germany they say that one has to be mad of some sorts to be a football goalkeeper to begin with.

Icke has said so many different things in so many different books, he just has to be right about something. So, Ms Lemon, the interesting question is with what he has said may he have been right in your opinion?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:49 AM

Gene,

"and even the claims about reptilian shapeshifters, etc., whilst certainly a little speculative, are actually no more so than most religious thought throughout history,"

Just a little then? Only a little?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:26 AM

So he IS Jesus? And the Royal Family ARE inter-gallactic lizards?

Who knew?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: skarpi
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:35 AM

he is so right :>)
at last you will see what is realy goin on

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:20 AM

Les,

Well, you'd be surprised...I've met one or two individuals even in the upper echelons of the folk establishment who might just be prime candidates! :))

It's oft repeated that David Icke has claimed in the past to be Jesus, but I trawled through a fair bit of archive footage on youtube a few months ago (OK, I admit it, I was intrigued...as well as unemployed and with far too much time on my hands), and found absolutely no record of this. Could it be that Icke-claims-to-be-the-messiah is in fact an urban myth, propagated to discredit his ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:09 AM

Flat Earth News has been reviewed by every broadsheet newspaper and received ample coverage on You & Yours, Thinking Allowed and the Today programme on Radio 4. So rather more coverage than most books. Davies has some fair points, but is largely guilty of the same crimes with which he berates the media - unattribution, selective quoting, post-hoc argument, invalid assumptions and plain prejudice.
As for Icke - yes, he is dead serious. Poor chap.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:17 AM

I saw a documentary about him some years ago, and there was footage of Icke on a chat show, claiming to be the Messiah. The look in his eyes was scary.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:29 AM

Probably the confusion arises from Icke's statement on Wogan comparing the derision heaped on his head to the derision directed at Jesus "...only a carpenter's son", or words to that effect. Not the same as actually claiming to BE Jesus; though his choice of analogy was unfortunate because of course this gave the scoffers all the ammunition they needed for some time afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:59 AM

Thanks Gervase.

I hope it becomes a bestseller, and the maximum number read it, critically. of course.

As afr as I can see, we learn more accurate pictures of the world from study, criticality and books, than from radio, telly and newspapers.

I will read on in the book with extra care. And I do wonder, given that the bulk of the population don't have the banks of researchers of Davies, Michael Moore, Bird/Fortune/Bremner and all, how we can most effectively get nearer the truth than at prsent.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:48 PM

Gene,

What exactly do you think this means:

"and even the claims about reptilian shapeshifters, etc., whilst certainly a little speculative,"

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 01:29 PM

I don't remember "Jesus was only a carpenter's son" - I remember distinctly him being challenged by the host over whether he was claiming to be the Messiah.

The whole lizard issue is slightly problematic, no?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

Well, it is only logical, for goodness sakes.

1. Jesus said "The kingdom of heaven is within you."

2. Jesus said "Greater things than I have done, ye shall do."

3. Jesus on the third day after his entombment, arose into heaven.

4. Therefore Jesus is within David Ickes, just as much as any of the bacteria or other microorgansims that make up his body are.

5. Humans do not use the first-person plural when referring to themselves, plus their bodies, plus bacteria and other forms of life wihtin their bodies. They use the first person singular. The "I" represents that one viewpoint guides the whole lot (a problematic assertion, but embedded in usage).

6. Therefore there is nothing logically wrong with David admitting he is Jesus.

Ya gotta learn how to think clearly about these things, fellas!


A

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM

Can't you get a more sensible hobby?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 02:47 PM

Les-

It means simply that there are many facets of the world around us, the way we're governed and subtly controlled, and indeed the very nature of our own existence, that we have little if any understanding of. Icke posits a set of answers, as have many religious, secular and political thinkers down the ages. There's nothing wrong with or ridiculous about that, in itself- aren't we ALL looking for answers, ultimately? I don't find Icke's inherently any less believable than anybody else's, and whilst they may be speculative, the same could be said of any religious, political, or even scientific theory.

Joan-

Can you provide a link to any actual footage of David Icke claiming to be Jesus? If so, I'd be interested to see it. However, you must be able to see that "...I saw him say it on some documentary once" doesn't exactly constitute empirical evidence!

Amos-

I think now is as good a time as any to announce to the world that I, too, am He...

("For he was despised and rejected..." ;>))

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 02:54 PM

Time fer a song, dudes and dudettes.

Ben E. King

"Stand By Me"

When the night has come, and the land is dark
And the moon is the only light we will see
No, I won't be afraid, oh, I won't be afraid
Just as long as you stand, stand by me
So darlin', darlin' stand by me
Oh stand by me
Oh stand, stand by me, stand by me

If the sky that we look upon should tumble and fall
Or the mountain should crumble to the sea
I won't cry, I won't cry, no, I won't shed a tear
Just as long as you stand, stand by me
And darlin', darlin' stand by me
Oh stand by me
Whoa stand now, stand by me, stand by me

*Solo*

And darlin', darlin' stand by me
Oh stand by me
Oh stand now, stand by me, stand by me

Whenever you're in trouble won't you stand by me
Oh stand by me
Whoa stand now, oh stand, stand by me...

Whenever you're in trouble won't you stand by me
Oh stand by me
Whoa stand now, oh stand, stand by me...
*fade*


I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. (Man, that was hard to splel!)

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 02:54 PM

Yes, Gene, but I'm not writing a thesis - I'm nattering on a messageboard. All I can tell you is what I remember seeing. My ex-husband had told me all about David Icke, so I was interested to see what he had to say for himself. I was thinking he couldn't really be THAT bonkers. What I remember is quite a gentle, quiet man who very clearly needed help.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: *daylia*
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:00 PM

hee hee!   Thanks Amos, guess that makes us all Jesus (oh lucky Jesus ;)

(i)The whole lizard issue is slightly problematic, no? (/i)   

"Lizard Issue"? A problem?? No Siree! Quick, Ruth, get a copyright -- what a great new title for all Royals (and their Royal Issue) in Ickey's New World Order    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:05 PM

Gene,

"I don't find Icke's inherently any less believable than anybody else's, and whilst they may be speculative, the same could be said of any religious, political, or even scientific theory."

Religions can say what ever they like, they are unencombered by much evidence.

If one says chocolate teapots circle the moon then ok, shall we look for them. It's an idea we can try to test. David and his lizards - well let him bring forth the evidence.

Most religions look ok if you look at them one at a time. When you look at them all together they mutually contradictive. Does that make them valid? Well I suppose yes if you want to believe anything you like.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:06 PM

THE FOOL ON THE HILL (McCartney/Lennon)

Day after day, alone on the hill
The man with the foolish grin
Is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him
The can see that he's just a fool
And he never gives an answer


But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round


Well on the way, head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices
Talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice


But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round


But nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings


But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round


Oh round, round, round, round, round


He never listens to them
He knows that they're the fools
And they don't like him


The fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM

I think the best argument for lizard-aliens is the tongue thrust of George Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM

"David and his lizards - well let him bring forth the evidence."

You may find the documentary linked to at the beginning of the thread may shed some light on the matter, Les.

As for religions being unencumbered by much evidence, that of course is true. A believer would probably say that if you strive to live according to your/their faith, then your own life will ultimately provide the proof. Me, I just don't know (though I used to, once- but that's another story)...but my mind remains open.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM

Should also have said, re. "mutually contradictive (sic-I think!)"... that the three major monotheistic faiths actually share a single sacred text (the OT / Torah -which would probably still be my chosen desert island reading matter); though this is probably too obvious to merit pointing out.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:34 PM

You don't choose it Gene, you get it for free.

that the three major monotheistic faiths actually share a single sacred text

I just how many Muslims believe they share that text with the Jews?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 03:50 PM

I think the Sufis would; and in fact the Koran itself states as much. Words to the effect that the Jews were indeed given the Word of God, but then many turned away, thus necessitating further reminders from J.C. and the Prophet. (Been a year or so since I read the Koran, but that's the gist).

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 04:06 PM

i From: Amos - PM
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

Well, it is only logical, for goodness sakes.

1. Jesus said "The kingdom of heaven is within you."

2. Jesus said "Greater things than I have done, ye shall do."

3. Jesus on the third day after his entombment, arose into heaven.

4. Therefore Jesus is within David Ickes, just as much as any of the bacteria or other microorgansims that make up his body are.



Ya gotta learn how to think clearly about these things, fellas


Bit of a segue there from "the kingdom of God" to "Jesus", Amos, between 1. and 4.

The kingdom is in us all e.g. Love, reality. So i can begin to go with 1.

4. looks sorta different.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 04:50 PM

Sid Vicious's mother is supposed to have spilt his ashes at Heathrow. Several people have suggested that they may be going round forever in the ventilation system....

If I've inhaled a bit of Sid in my many sojourns through Heathrow, I reckon he's more a part of me than Jesus is.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:01 PM

this is interesting

sal

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM

Typical Channel 5 documentary - minimum research maximum gibberish.

It's a shame about all the god stuff and teh lizard stuff - as far as teh Orwellian conspiracy goes it seems to fit with my world view - but

mostly lizards can't breed with mammals
no facts, no testing - just another religion.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM

"mostly lizards can't breed with mammals"

Cloning, Richard, cloning.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:45 PM

Hey, if there's any chance that she's one of the lizard crew, I am willing, at great risk to my very own personal being, to 'take one for the team' and test the veracity of Richard's assertion that "mostly lizards can't breed with mammals."

No need to thank me. Not at all.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:47 PM

Seriously. Just one thing: if I die in the line of duty, please start a non-political thread in my memory. One about the semi-colon.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: folk1e
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:08 PM

"4. Therefore Jesus is within David Ickes, just as much as any of the bacteria or other micro organisms that make up his body are.
......
....6. Therefore there is nothing logically wrong with David admitting he is Jesus.

Ya gotta learn how to think clearly about these things, fellas!" ........... Amos

Well if we were to stretch logic that way ..... Every molecule given out by all of the "famous" ie Michaelangelo, Leonardo .. et al have been floating round our biosphere to the extent that every breath I take contains at least one molecule of each of them! That means that in all probability I myself am part Jesus/Michaelangelo/ Leonardo/ .. et al!
There how can you cope with that?
Of course you contain the same amount as me (given normal variables) so we are all one big happy family arn't we!

As far as I am aware you can not "clone" two separate species, or even two separate individuals. Chimera's though are a different matter!
Are the lizard metamorphs able to appear mammalian? Or do they need to bask in the sun before sucking our brains out? If they are so good at mimicing us ....how does he know? A visit from Will Smith in a black suit? Or the writing of Nostradamus??

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:33 PM

Whether Icke was right or not, it looks like the laughs were on Wogan when Icke returned to his show many years later...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3282232518791280440&q=david+ickes&total=3195&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:04 AM

Are you sure, Carol? He has a go for Wogan's treatment of him last time, but goes on to spout paranoid conspiracy theories that make the da Vinci Code look plausable.

Still a certified crackpot, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:11 AM

Oh! and look - he's still going on about the lizards:

the lizards are coming!

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:29 AM

By the way: if you watch the Jon Ronson documentary on Icke, the original claim to be Jesus on the Wogan show is there.


Ronson on David Icke

It also exposes what may be his rather nasty anti-Semitic streak.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 05:34 AM

Well I have to say I was surprised not by the barmyness but the ordinaryness of most of what he says.

Something like their has been a group of powerful people who ran the Roman Empire, then European Monarchies then European Empires. He uses the term "Bloodlines" and it is true that heredity played a part.

But isn't he simply saying the ruling class ruled? When power was seated in the ownership of land they owned the land when industrialisation came they owned factories and then other peoples countries as empires. Now we have trans-global capitalism. And its owned and managed by people who are unaccountable who we don't know.

He has a go about George W Bush not really running the US. In the short term which is worse - that he does or that he doesn't?

As for Lizards? I can't be bothered.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: goatfell
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:01 AM

nutcase

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:12 AM

I missed the 'Lizards' bit. I did hear him say that America did not have an open society (or words to that effect)!

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:30 AM

"Something like their has been a group of powerful people who ran the Roman Empire, then European Monarchies then European Empires. He uses the term "Bloodlines" and it is true that heredity played a part."

And who still, apparently, run the world. As the big conspiracy theories go, this is not a new one - usually these ruling families are meant to be Jewish, and the big question in Ronson's documentary is whether this is what Icke is covertly implying. Where it gets completely nuts is when he claims that these people are, in fact, shape-shifting lizards. Who kill blond-haired, blue-eyed children. And drink their blood.


No, seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:44 AM

I guess the bloodlines play little part anymore but people run trans-global capitalism, who are they?

Murdoch is putting his family in place and the Bush family looks after itself quite well. Is this a conspiracy or just capitalism?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:55 AM

In any pack of dogs, you will find them all barking the same tune. The same is true of sheep, only they don't bark. They go "baaaaa" and follow the sheep in front of them. The one in front probably has no real idea where he's going, but this doesn't bother the other 6,000 sheep in the least. They all figure they must be going to the right place, and as long as they do exactly what all the other sheep are doing and always have done...they are safe...and no one will laugh at them.

God forbid that anyone should laugh!!!!!!!!! (That would be worse than death itself.) Thus are the sheep kept in line.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:03 AM

Are they actually lizards in sheeps clothing?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:14 AM

Are you sure, Carol? He has a go for Wogan's treatment of him last time, but goes on to spout paranoid conspiracy theories that make the da Vinci Code look plausable.

Yes, I'm sure. If you watch and listen to the video you can hear the audience laughing at Wogan (and clapping for Icke). I'm not referring to whether or not what Icke has to say has any legitimacy. I'm only referring to who is being laughed at in that video.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 12:54 PM

I think you can only condem this man as a nutcase if you honestly believe the media tells the unquestionable truth.

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:11 PM

Oh, I find what he says about media control of perception quite on the button. It's the lizards and the multiple dimensions and the God-bothering that I find a little deranged.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:12 PM

I think he is wrong about the lizards, that is nutty.

Do I honestly believe the media tells the unquestionable truth?

No

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:35 PM

none of his theories about the media or politics are particularly original - there are plenty of sane people saying similar things that you could listen to instead. I'm a big fan of Al Franken personally, who will tell you all kinds of stuff about the Bush family, for example, and how they came to power. Or about how a woman who had an oil tanker named after her became responsible for environmental policy, FFS.

Taken in the context of the lizards and the dimensions and the God-bothering, as Richard has so succinctly put it, Icke's political and media theorising becomes part of a much bigger paranoid delusion. I used to know someone, a diagnosed psychotic, who did similar things - he took the stories in the news as a jumping-off point, so it all started out perfectly sane, but then his theories spiralled off into fantasy and delusion - at one point, he told me he'd been locked in a cupboard for days with Patty Hearst. I asked him how that could be, as her kidnapping had taken place before he was born. He just laughed knowingly.

Mad paople can be very plausable. That doean't make them any less mad. The thing that concerned me most when watching the Jon Ronson programme is the idea of Icke being parentally responsible for two young children.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM

I think y'all worry more about him than he does about you. He's written lots of books, though. Seems to be doing well at it. IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:58 PM

Ruth, I have no idea if they are lizards in sheep's clothing. No idea whatsoever. Got that? No opinion. I have nothing to go on to have any opinion about that, and neither does anyone else here. ;-)

But I do know that 99% of people are sheep. They imitate. They parrot others. They repeat what they have heard from others all their lives. They follow the herd. They ridicule anyone who doesn't. Try being "different" (in any way at all) and you will see.

I have no idea if David Icke is right or not about the lizard thing. Not a frikkin' clue! How could I have any idea if he is, when I have had no experience to either confirm or deny anything he is saying?

What I do know is that a great deal of what he says makes very good sense indeed and is right on the mark. I also know that he presents himself very well, and speaks very well, and seems also to be a nice man and a smart man. On a personal level, he impresses me well. That's all I have to go on. That means I respect him as another human being, and I will listen to him calmy, and consider what he says...not form a snap judgement about it based on prior habits and prejudices of a lifetime. I will listen just as calmly and fairly to him as I would to any other human being who speaks decently and politely to me about something. A pity I couldn't say that about a lot of other people!

That doesn't either confirm or deny for me anything that he says about lizards....but I do find much of what he says very interesting and persuasive. To simply reject some other things he says out of hand...just because they are very unusual...is not an indication of anything except mindless habit on the part of people who think, "I already know what's real and what isn't in this world, and no one can tell me otherwise. Anyone who does tell me otherwise is nuts!"

Sheep, in other words. Sheep are unwilling to deal with anything that isn't already familiar to them, and if they encounter the unfamiliar in somone they all go, "BAAAAAAA! Look at the nutter! BAAAAAAAAA!"

Their reaction is not based on knowledge, or rationality, or fairness, or objectivity, or curiosity, or anything reasonable whatsoever. It's based entirely on their own ignorance and their totally smug satisfaction in remaining just that ignorant and prejudiced for the rest of their stupid lives, and automatically laughing at anyone they find "unusual", despite having no actual evidence or experience of their own on which to base their laughter.

Again, I say, I have NO IDEA whether he's right or not about the "lizards". None. Not a clue. Zip. Nada. I admit that I know absolutely nothing about it, and I have no personal experience to go on concerning it, therefore I have no business having any definite opinion about it. It's a damned shame most people won't admit likewise that they know bloody well nothing about half of the things in this world that they will so readily voice an instantaneous and strong opinion on.

I do know this. He's not an anti-semite, and allegations that he is are utterly ridiculous. I've read enough of what he's written and heard enough of what he's said live to know with certainty that he is most definitely not an anti-semite. What he clearly believes in is freedom and equality for all human beings. The man is simply tremendously idealistic about humanity and the positive potentials of human beings. As such, he is quite a rarity in the present day and age.....and quite a juicy target for anyone of a fearful or cynical nature.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:07 PM

I watched enough footage of him today to make up my own mind - so take your baa-ing and shove it up your arse.

You DON'T KNOW if he's right about the lizards? So what, you think it's just possible that the royal family and everyone in a position of power in the world might JUST BE a shape-shifting lizard who drinks blood, so you don't want to make a frigging judgement?

The bloke's a loon. I'm not. Therefore, I can categorically state that the world is NOT dominated by shape-shifting lizards, and to say so does not make me a sheep - it simply makes me not a nutter.

End of.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:47 PM

Little Hawk, that was a great post. Said most of the things I've been trying to say far better than I ever could. Pay no attention to the scoffers- they know not what they do (often very literally!)

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:49 PM

BTW, I'd imagine with Icke's considerable wealth his children are provided for pretty well.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:52 PM

Christ, Gene - I didn't think it was possible for you to make a bigger twat of yourself, but with every post you exceed my expectations. Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:26 PM

Go to hell, Ruth.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM

Ah, if only it existed, Little Hawk. It'd probably be filled with baby-eating lizards, dontcha know.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:22 PM

Ruth, your problem is? Icke's house speaks very loudly of wealth, did you not see the pictures.

So is he now one of the illuminati, possibly their Lucifer?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:34 PM

does wealth automatically make for an appropriate and safe environment for children? Michael Jackson is very wealthy too.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:07 PM

So's Fort Knox, wealthy that is. Be a great place for a community daycare, dontcha think?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:15 PM

Checked out the rooms. They are SMALL! Bad idea 'bout the daycare.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:23 PM

Looks pretty child-safe, though. No drawers or doors for them to catch their little fingers in. Maybe wealth is the key to effective childcare after all.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:28 PM

For lizards/sheep - read lemmings in this unsustainable world of ours?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:07 PM

I just watched a bit of one of Icke lectures. He reminds me of the people that they have on public TV during pledge drives. Kind of a Suze Orman for the neo-futurist set.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:10 PM

Oh God! not Suze Orman!

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:10 PM

Easy for you to say, JtS, but you're one of the paleo-post modern set.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 11:39 PM

This is all relevant:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7320000/newsid_7324700?redirect=7324700.stm&news=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&bb

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 11:40 PM

I enjoyed this talk of his, even despite the whole lizard/illuminati thing (it's in 42 parts)...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=david+icke+freedom+or+fascism&search_type=

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:36 AM

See this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/03/we_lose_in_greed_game.html

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:13 PM

The Reptilian brain is a valid psyhological and evolutionary concept, but the transdimensional lizard story does not fly.
He knows it. We know it. But it is a radical schtick in which people can easily remember and identify the man and the ideas.

Its a marketing tool really.

As a hypnotist myself and a keen observer of the repeating media suggestions being propogandized every day, I would say he has his finger on the pulse of reality.

In my own way I painted by had the great sunami before it happened,. I painted the twin towers on fire with an airplane above before it happened etc and I too do not consider myself a prophet but rather free enogugh in my thinking to see the likelyhood of certain events and why they occur.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:12 PM

On April 19th, 1995, I believe that the Global Elite, via elements within the U.S. government, the CIA and Mossad, murdered some 168 men, women and children in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. (Icke)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:20 PM

I invented and made by hand the Power of Greed Game. It has a 3D game board, 40 careers choices and 400 event cards.

The newspaper in the game is called the Daily Leak.

It made the papers when I lived in Boston.
I think they liked my newspaper name.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:13 PM

That's surprisingly radical for Robert Peston. Normally he's very pro-capital. Maybe his problem with the activity described is that it's capitalists who lose out this time.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:32 AM

But how do we cease their power?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:58 AM

Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:01 AM

Jim, please go on.........

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:24 AM

After listening to several hours of David Icke's talks, I have to say that what he is saying is no weirder or more crazy than what is said by any of the world's religions. In fact, in many respects, it's quite similar. Especially the reptiles part. What he is talking about could very easily come from a Christian if the terminology was changed a bit, and "Satan" and "demons" were substituted for "reptilians" and "illuminati".

He is also not a cultist. He doesn't want or expect anyone to believe anything he says. He isn't trying to sever anyone's existing relationships or isolate anyone from their existing relationships. He's not trying to start a church with followers. He's just going around the world talking to people about what he believes.

He isn't telling anyone to do anything other than to act on what their consciences tell them and telling them that love is the most powerful force in the universe. Not only is he harmless to himself and others (including his own children), I would say that he is very much a force for good in the world, regardless of whether or not what he says is true.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 12:02 PM

"I have to say that what he is saying is no weirder or more crazy than what is said by any of the world's religions.In fact, in many respects, it's quite similar"

I couldn't agree more Carol but I don't see that as any reason for taking him seriously.

From an atheistic perspective all religions are just a collection of stories and ideas, nothing wrong with that, in the Library it's called fiction. But behind most of them are a collection of ideas and stories for which their is no evidence and many are completely at odds with the rest of human experience.

But lizards, thats just daft.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 12:08 PM

I haven't suggested that there is any reason to take him seriously. What I have suggested is that there isn't any more reason to attack him or to suggest such extreme measures as taking his children away from him (as some on this thread are doing) than there is anyone else who talks to others about his or her religious or spiritual beliefs .

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 12:11 PM

But lizards, thats just daft.

No more daft than the serpent the Old Testament tells us about in the Garden of Eden.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:06 PM

Here is an excellent and very lucid talk by David Icke, well worth watching. It helps explain exactly how the sheep keep all the other sheep in line:

See if you have had some of these thoughts cross your mind from time to time..I bet you have. If so, you may be growing restless with the ways of the flock. You may even spend less time watching television and eating chips than the rest of the flock.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:41 PM

Oh, Little Hawk, get over yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:46 PM

"But lizards, thats just daft.

No more daft than the serpent the Old Testament tells us about in the Garden of Eden."



Your point being?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:49 PM

Your point being?

My point being that he is fairly normal by the standards we use to define normal in our society at this point in time.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:56 PM

The Book
I was an Econonomic Hitman

gives several tactics to defeat the: empire/status quo/power elite/corporatism... by changing it from the top down and bottom up.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 02:00 PM

As I've said, I have no opinion about the "lizard" thing...and nothing to base such an opinion on.

I've never yet met ANYONE who was right about everything. Why should I expect David Icke to be? He may well be wrong about the lizards. Who knows? I certainly don't. I don't have a shred of information to enable me to judge him on that, one way or another.

I do, however, find much of what he says to be extremely intelligent, very lucid, and I agree with much of what he says. That's why it's worth some of my time to listen to what the man has to say.

Would you drop all respect for any human being you know on the basis that they were wrong about one specific thing they said? If so, you would have to drop all respect for every other human being on the face of this Earth! Because everyone gets something wrong now and then.

As for those who would like to take his children away...oh, you must really miss the dear old days of the Spanish Inquisition. Just think, YOU could have been one of the inquisitors, and you could not only take away the children of nonconformists like David Icke, you could also take David Icke and other troublesome types like that, rip out their fingernails, gouge out their eyes, cut out their tongues, and burn them at the stake.

Wouldn't that be just ducky? Then you could take their kids and raise them up to be "decent" people....like you.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 02:02 PM

Some folks have scratch pads that are 1/4" wide.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:07 AM

Thanks for that Donuel.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 02:07 PM

Looks like this one's going to get to 100, now...it IS a testimony to Icke's magnetism that even many who ostensibly scorn him are sufficiently drawn to his teachings to keep discussing them. Remind us of anyone else?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 02:34 PM

What does 100 posts have to do with it Gene? I have looked at his theories, I don't believe in them. So I think what you are saying is, the reason I am typing this message right now is, he's got so much magnetism even though I disagree with him, that I am somehow still interested in him? No I am not. This is a forum. This is what we do. We agree, we disagree, we argue, we calm each other down, we rationalize, we persuade. Am I supposed to be drawn to John McCain just because he has a couple of threads discussing him? Or Obama, or Clinton? Am I supposed to like a certain artist discussed on here just because of the number of postings to the thread? No...of course not. It's just another thread. Your What is acoustic rock thread had a lot of replies to it, so was that because of your magnetism, or was it just something we like to talk about?

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 02:53 PM

Well, I think people chipped in because they had strong views either in favour of, against, or doubting the very existence of, acoustic rock (the latter coming closest to my own view). And, for me, because I saw an opportunity to put in a couple of links like this ("Judge For Yourselves") and garner a few CD sales on the side...:))   

Seriously, though, all I can say is, I generally don't chip into discussions (either here or in real life) unless I have at least some degree of interest in them...I have very little interest in US domestic politics, for example, thus you won't find my name on any of those threads. I don't understand why people would want to pass comment on a matter of complete indifference to themselves; and I suspect (as Little Hawk suggests) that some of the scoffers on here are, privately, really grappling with some of the issues Icke raises. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! In my experience, particularly where spiritual matters are concerned, it really is better to have an open mind than a closed one...

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:19 PM

Fair enough-I won't chime in on UK politics either for the same reason, or things I don't feel qualified to discuss. I disagree though about what Little Hawk and you suggest is the reason for the scoffers on here. As I said, I have read some of Icke's stuff, I read Jon Ronson's "Them", I get what he is talking about, and I disagree with it. Me sharing that information is NOT grappling with some of the issues Icke raises. That's putting words in my mouth (or thoughts in my head. And if you think that's a closed mind saying that, then you don't know me, and what my thoughts and beliefs are.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:31 PM

Did I say YOU had a closed mind? Emphatically not. Please, don't put words in my mouth, either.

Oh, and 100.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:33 PM

Wasn't implying you did Gene, meant it as a general "you". I should have been more specific, sorry

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:36 PM

"I have looked at his theories, I don't believe in them."

Huh???? I don't get that. David Icke has a whole LOT of theories, not just one or two theories. There are hundreds of theories contained within his theories, for gosh sakes. ;-) How can anyone just believe...or not believe...ALL of it at the same time????

It's like saying you don't believe in anything that Marx said, or that Jesus said, or that Abraham Lincoln said, or that Gorbachev or Reagain said. NONE of it! Yeah, right... Surely, in all the stuff David Icke says, there are some things that are somewhat believable? Others that seem quite unlikely, but yet, how would you know for sure? Others that seem quite plausible, but again, how would you know for sure?

It's not a question of just BELIEVING or NOT BELIEVING what he says. It's a question of giving some consideration to something he says and considering that it might be so.

Why would I have to BELIEVE what David Icke says...or DISBELIEVE it...when I'm not in a position to corroborate any of it or prove it or disprove it?

What does BELIEF or DISBELIEF even have to do with it? Why must one necessarily believe or disbelieve in a proposition in order to be interested in it?

I'm interested in what David Icke has to say. That doesn't mean I HAVE to either believe it or disbelieve it. I'm simply interested, period.

Believers and disbelievers are people who've got their minds all made up...which relieves them, it seems to me, from having to bear the burden of actually thinking about the matter any longer. They are armoured, like the Pope, with presumed infallibility from that point on by their BELIEF...or their NON-BELIEF. ;-)   (and that's exactly what irritates me about their attitude)

See what I mean? Why must you assert belief or disbelief in something you cannot prove? What point is there in doing so? And why wouldn't you have a strong interest in something even when, and especially when, you're in no position to prove or disprove it?

What is wrong with people that they think there are only 2 possible choices to have in life: to believe in or to disbelieve in something ? Where the hell do they get such an idea??????

Those are NOT the only 2 choices in life. It is also possible to say, "Look, I don't know, okay? But I do find this interesting. There may be something to it. Or there may not. He may be for real. He may not. He might be part right and part wrong. He might be half right. He might be 1/3 right. He might be 2/3 right. He might be a total fraud. He might be a brilliant man who's really onto something. I will continue to look into this because I find it interesting. I do not have to either believe it or disbelieve it in order to find it interesting, and worthy of some attention."

THAT's an open mind, and it's also a mind that has enough humility, for gosh sakes, to admit that it doesn't know everything already!

The Pope is not infallible nor is anyone else around here.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:23 PM

irishenglish, we're cool, no worries.

Those that put themselves in the frame for infallibility, or being the last word on The Truth are generally, when you scratch the surface, deeply conflicted and insecure people. But perhaps we shouldn't judge them too harsly...we've probably all been there at some point in our lives. Best to see them as standing by the water, waiting to cross (whether they know it or not...)

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:59 PM

Little Hawk-Ok rightly or wrongly I was generalizing by saying I have read Icke's theories. I meant I have been on his website, I read quite a lot of the articles on there actually, I read in interview he did with Rick Martin on Icke's official website. I haven't read any of his actual books, but upon reading some of the material on the website, I personally find a lot of his claims dubious. I always have a degree of trepidation when I come across anybody, who suddenly, through all our course of history and science, comes up with bold sweeping revisions to our previous understanding of our own world. Hell, some people still don't believe in THe Big Bang, so what they might think about some of Icke's more interesting theories I don't know! Using your examples, I can see in this case how I came across as using a believer/unbeliever mentality, and would agree that should not be one's approach in life. My wife and I do discuss things, sometimes it becomes a heated exchange (don't even ask me about our Catholics, are they Christians argument!), sometimes it is rational, coherent thought with analysis, both pro and con to whatever position we are debating. Whatever you wish to pursue in terms of David Icke, or whether you choose to read more of his work is of course your perogative, and I hope it provides you with many hours of thoughtful contemplation. Personally, upon review of some of his work, I have to say I honestly began to laugh, I just couldn't help myself. I stepped back though and began thinking about some of his bloodline discussion. I am no great analytical thinker, nor am I a scholar, but then I started thinking about his bloodlines argument. And I began thinking how in my mind it contradicted what archaelogists are still finding out about ancient civilizations, and how societies developed. I started thinking about what an elite alien bloodline such as he suggests was doing when man was still making rudimentary tools. I began thinking why any of the world's greatest thinkers-The Greeks, the Chinese, our astronomers and philosophers etc. have never mentioned any of Icke's own theories. I began thinking why one man could suddenly work all of this together, essentially on his own.
And then I started thinking about what proof he has for some of the more outrageous claims, such as former British PM Ted Heath performing ritual sacrifice of children before shape shifting into a lizard (from the aforementioned Rick Martin interview). And when I saw unsubstantiated claims such as that Little Hawk, that is when I decided that I didn't think I could believe anything he really had to say.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:59 PM

Cool. ;-) Now we're talking clearly and understanding each other, I think. I am also quite dubious about a number of David Icke's more bizarre claims, although I'm pretty sure he's being dead serious about them. In other words, I think he fully believes what he's saying and is being honest in presenting it, but that doesn't mean he's correct about everything. I'd be very surprised if he is correct about everything...though I wouldn'd be surprised if he was correct about, oh...say half of it. As to which half? Well, I couldn't say. ;-)

I was well acquainted for 3 or 4 years with a highly paid professional counsellor in these parts...we're talking a medical professional with university degrees here...and a proudly independent Jewess, by the way...and she believed EVERYTHING David Icke has to say. It's gospel to her. Needless to say, she doesn't think he's an anti-semite!

Now, this lady is pretty smart...smarter than the average person...and she's quite successful...but she likes some really offbeat stuff, and the more dramatic it is, the better she likes it.

She talked to me about David Icke and the frikking lizard shapeshifters and all that stuff till I was bloody well SICK of hearing about it! She furthermore claimed that she had seen a person shapeshift into a reptilian (just around their eyes) and that this person had threatened her life.

What can I say about that? Hmmm. Well, I know she means what she says, I know she's utterly sincere about it, I know something happened, and I know she believes that that is what she saw...but that in itself is simply not sufficient to convince me of the existence of reptilian shapeshifters. (People sometimes tend to see what they already think they are going to see...or they misinterpret what they see.) I'd have to hear a similar story from at least 3 different sources I know (and sources who didn't know each other) before I would begin to be fairly ready to be convinced about it.

Or I'd have to see such a phenomenon myself! That would convince me.

And that's pretty much the basis I go on.

So, as I say, this professional lady talked to me about David Icke till I got sick of it. So I read some of his books, just to see for myself. I ended up finding him quite interesting, and got a better impression of him just on his own merits than from my friend's enthusiastic over-promotion of him. I grew to rather like David Icke. He's got a lot of guts, and a good sense of humor. I like those qualities in a person.

Now, David Icke claims that he's had many testimonials from people who've seen these shape-shifting phenomena. And maybe he has. I can't say. If he has, then I could begin to understand why he has come to believe in it. He says he didn't believe in it at all when he heard from the first couple of people who spoke to him...he thought they were experiencing delusions or hallucinations. Fair enough.

But as you can see, I am just about as dubious about the whole thing as you are (and as David Icke himself was at the beginning). I've met ONE person so far...albeit a sincere and intelligent one...who claims to have seen a reptilian shapeshifter. I believe she believes it. Fine. That doesn't mean I believe it. I don't have enough experience or info to believe it.

One witness wasn't enough to convince David Icke, and it's not enough to convince me either. I remain uncommitted one way or another about it, and I probably will remain so indefinitely unless I have a direct personal experience that changes my mind...or unless I meet several people I deem trustworthy who have had such experiences.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 10:40 PM

Little Hawk, I get you, and I will concur, that whatever I may think, I do believe that Icke does believe what he writes about himself, he's not just someone pushing easy answers for money.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 08:00 AM

Donuel - do you mean 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins?