It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

David Icke and political peadophiles. Is it time to re adress his claims?

page: 10
53
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DarkCharade

Listen to his videocasts which he updates weekly,there are between 5 to 10 minutes long,let me tell you not much gets past this man.......




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I would encourage you to write your thread but will warn you to be preapeared to be shot down in flames for doing so.
I will give you an honest opinion but please be aware it will not be welcomed with open arms by many.

Good luck and I hope to see your thread soon.

Nonspecific.


a reply to: DarkCharade



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: angelchemuel

He got the information on Saville from one of Princess Diana's closest friends



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I would love to see that link my freind!

Links or it did not happen.

a reply to: southbeach



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: nonspecific

Unfortunately, the man has almost completely discredited himself, and his own actions and unbelievable rantings have probably done more damage and caused more delays to investigation than anything else.

The problem is that his nonsense has caused a lot of disbelief of everything he says, regardless of the subject. If he had any evidence, any credible evidence, of anything he claimed, he should have presented it for the world to see.

The man is a lunatic, and whether something he says is true or not, unless there is actual cause to believe it he should be ignored by all rational people.

The conspiracy theorist community has long been plagued by rogue crazies who offer no evidence of anything while making their case, they do us all a massive disservice and diminish credible investigations. This man should be shamed for the damage he has done not only to intelligent conspiracy theorists but to the victims of child abuse too.


I could not agree more. Bravo.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: angelchemuel

He got the information on Saville from one of Princess Diana's closest friends


What is the name of this person and how would they know? What actual evidence did they produce to prove their claims?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Here goes brother it's around the 45 minute mark.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

The name of the person?
I have no clue but it comes from the Horses mouth David Icke,he gives an explanation as to how he came by his information,you either believe him or not but the fact remains,he knew before the rest of us did.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Man you really will not let it go will you, you do not like David Icke, we get that

Your posts bring nothing but demands and mockery so why not either put some effort in or take your energy somewhere else where you can make a valid contribution to something.

We get your point, really we do.

Merry Christmas.

a reply to: Tangerine



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I would be inclined to believe him, it's my opinion that it will eventually come out that princess Diana was killed trying to expose the royal family paedophile ring!



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

what do you mean by it will be shot down in flames?
what do you mean it wont be welcomed? i thought we were an open community.
please elaborate what you mean as i may have misunderstood since im not native english.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   
I simply meant that not every one has a good opinion of Ickes work and you would likley get some negative comments about him like the odd one in this thread.

a reply to: alienDNA



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: nonspecific

what do you mean by it will be shot down in flames?
what do you mean it wont be welcomed? i thought we were an open community.
please elaborate what you mean as i may have misunderstood since im not native english.


Meaning the general consensus around here is Icke is a nut job, ergo the thread will be derailed or it will be a bashing contest.

Icke is weird, very weird but so was Einstein, Tesla, and many other great thinkers. I'm not comparing his intellectual prowess to these intellectual juggernauts, only taking note of some familiarity. You kind of have to be a little off kilter to be able to see angles and dimensions not easily recognizable. I also think that there are only a few tools in the toolbox of the elite. Either discredit them or canoe/Cesna them (suicided) and for the few exceptions simply drive them mad like Tesla or Bennowictz.
edit on 24-12-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
i dont get it.
so if you dont like icke - then all of a sudden all of his credible work and research is de-facto bunk from the get go?
did you all of a sudden close your minds just because it is icke?

why would you start bashing someone or a thread if the research/information within is valid?

why does ATS think david icke is a nut job?
ive read most of his books, watched most of his lectures, and i find him intriguing and absolutely not insane.
he might have some wild theories, but so what? everyone does. he just has courage to speak on them.
and for those theories he has about lizards, the matrix, etc - he might offer some esoteric and non-viable evidence - sure, but its still just theories - HIS theories.. let the man have his theories about such things...
either you are open to it are you are not.
thats fine.

but he still does alot of real world research into very real world things.
and he is by definition clearly not insane.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Ats has a very diverse membership so not everyone has the same opinions.

Search his name on the site and read a few threads, he has some followers and some that do not like him for various reasons.

It is on the whole quite popular to call him a crackpot and accuse him of only being in it for the money

a reply to: alienDNA



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Icke is weird, very weird but so was Einstein, Tesla, and many other great thinkers. I'm not comparing his intellectual prowess to these intellectual juggernauts, only taking note of some familiarity. You kind of have to be a little off kilter to be able to see angles and dimensions not easily recognizable.


They're not similar or comparable in any way. The men and women of science base their "outlandish" ideas for research in actual science and reality. Einstein didn't simply imagine and preach, he based his scientific research and theory on actual reality and then proved it, through peer review.

Icke has nothing to base his beliefs on, no evidence, no reality, no facts... he says things and people believe him. This is not about having an open mind or being brave enough to accept that some crazy things are real, this is about abandoning all logic and simply accepting the outlandish claims of one man because he got lucky (excuse the poor use of that phrase in this context) about something that was not actually that much of a secret.

Those claiming he must be right about so many things because of Savile are willfully ignoring that the man was a children's entertainer with a long history of suspicions going back decades. This did not all suddenly come to light as a shocking story after his death. For years people were claiming all sorts of things about that man and the authorities were not following it up or they were not finding the evidence for those claims. This was an institutional problem.

People knew about Savile before the story broke, obviously, the victims knew, police knew, some of the media had suspicions too. My point is that you don't need to have access to the courtiers of "Lizard People" to believe in an entirely probable and almost openly discussed story.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
It is on the whole quite popular to call him a crackpot and accuse him of only being in it for the money


But surely you can understand why?
He makes a lot of money making seriously outlandish claims, with absolutely no evidence, not one iota, not a thread of credible physical evidence for anything he claims.

I think it's entirely fair to describe him in exactly that way, as this is the evidence we have to be able to do so.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


Ummm...Now that wasn't so hard...was it...?

I don't really think this issue is about one believing in shape shifting lizards...or not...Rather...I think that it has more to do with not ascribing fact before truth/knowledge...

I certainly have no belief basis for his claims to that effect...however...because of my ignorance of evidentiary fact one way or the other...I can't bring myself to make claims of knowledge on either side of the equation.......

That is the real meat of what I was trying to convey...I certainly could have used any number of other postee's in this thread to illustrate my point as well........(I know...but it should be a word...right?)

I find that too many times claimants or respondents make statements of...knowledge...when obviously it's only a matter of their personal belief on the subject that they're using to portray "knowing"...

Now as to "rational"...how rational is it for you to make a statement of fact when your stance is an emotive supposition...based solely on what you choose to believe on a given matter...and not on evidence or exploratory knowledge...?

Therefore...how can any of what you stated be "critical reasoning"....I would point to my statements above as being more representative of such a claim...If indeed you were utilizing critical reasoning...you would approach any subject from a fact only stance...One that precluded any protestations of "I don't think that"...or...ascribing qualifiers like "bizarre" or "wacko"...or "offensive"...

You are aware that resorting to such labels actually only leads to your being discredited as a "critical thinker" and is further from the "rational" than might be considered...with a singular perspective qualifier of course...

I totally agree with your statement of heinous exploitation...The issue was that David Icke placed this information out there...long ago...and was discredited as a crackpot conspiracy theorist....for bringing this abuse by high level persons out into the light...

Thank you

YouSir



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Ats has a very diverse membership so not everyone has the same opinions.

Search his name on the site and read a few threads, he has some followers and some that do not like him for various reasons.

It is on the whole quite popular to call him a crackpot and accuse him of only being in it for the money

a reply to: alienDNA



Ummm...and that right there is the whole of it...in a nutshell....This is an opinion...not fact based website...Thus the overwhelming popularity of adjective...rather than objective...opining...

And this my friend is what the overwhelming.....would call rational...?

I must have slipped into "Mirror World"...cause that's a poor reflection of what...could/should...be...


YouSir



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I think it would be unfair to judge him unless you had personally read enough of his material to make an educated opition.

He is a conspiracy theorist, If he had evidence for all his claims he would be a historian.

a reply to: Rocker2013




top topics



 
53
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join